Slashdot Mirror
Human-powered Helicopter Fails to Lift Off
Peter writes "The Human-powered helicopter didn't even get off the ground. A team of University of British Columbia engineering students tried to win the $20,000 US prize offered by the American Helicopter Society. Three metres off the ground and hover for a minute was the challenge. But before the rotors were able to produce enough buoyant force they hit each other. More details: Vancouver Sun."
Wow, a human powered helicopter! Great, I would be free from traffic congestion on my five minute commute to work!
I dunno, for some reason, the second half of that headline seems pretty predictable after reading the first half :)
...not getting off the ground makes it difficult to crash.
Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
Everyone knows Canucks can't fly.
So no simulations or models or just spinning the rotors indicated this might happen?
"Right now we're all taking bets on what's going to fail first"
Sounds like this venture was well planned!
But killing humans and using them for fuel? That's horrible!
... He'd have provided more engineering graduate students.
The little guy just ain't getting it, is he?
"My feeling at the moment is that the machine is actually quite unstable," said Mike Georgallis, leader of the team that has been working on the project for six years.
Maybe they did know that this wasn't likely to be a success.
Cheers,
Erick
http://www.busyweather.com/
as a consultant(or maybe the people that infused him with the powers, I can't remember who)..
Peter writes "The Human-powered helicopter didn't even get off the ground. A team of University of British Columbia engineering students tried to win the $20,000 US prize offered by the American Helicopter Society. Three metres off the ground and hover for a minute was the challenge. But before the rotors were able to produce enough buoyant force they hit each other.
I assume 'they' refers to the rotors, not the team...
This is kind of a nitpick, but buoyant force has nothing to do with how helicopters work, blimps and boats use buoyancy, helicopters and planes use aerodynamic lift.
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
Does this mean Lance Armstrong will soon become an astronaut?
I've seen machines in the past that are glider-based, and a human could actually keep them in the air for a fairly long time. But a helicopter? I wonder what they're trying to accomplish here. I mean, obviously the students are trying to win $27,000, but I have to wonder what the American Helicopter Society is thinking. Vertical flight always consumes a heck of a lot more energy than horizontal. I'd like to see more effort put in to human-powerd glider projects.
But God demonstrates his love for us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us - (Romans 5:8)
but then we got hiiiiiigh!
Just goes to show kids that the evils of marijuana make you fail at everything! Even making yourself fly high!
To this story.
The point is that this type of research could lead to more efficient lift mechanisms for conventional aircraft. Allowing longer flights with less fuel requirements.
BTW, the Australian Parlament(sp?) past the free trade agreement, so we now have software patents, yay!
it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
A normal helicopter needs several Kilowatts of engine power to produce enough lift to even get itself off the ground, much less loaded down with a human. The human body constantly generates an approximate 200 watts. In case anyone's wondering, that's about 0.26 horsepower, and that's assuming that you can apply the full 200 watts of your energy.
:-)
It's fun to see them try, but the physics say that the energy just isn't there. Perhaps if the copter weighed almost nothing, and it was constructed of super-strong materials. Of course, then we'd have unobtainium.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
I'm guessing that the point of this is that a bunch of really bright (ok, maybe not so bright in this case) people are thinking of a way to solve a problem. Think about how useful a human-powered helicopter would be. Not only that, but how many failed attempts were there before the first successful airplane? Maybe someday someone will get it right, and you'll be able to pedal through the air to work. This helps people think up unusual solutions to interesting problems. Having a generation of people that are taught to think shouldn't be a bad thing in a free society.
IANAAerospace Engineer.
From reading their Project Status/Schedule page, it appears their problems may have arisen during the manufacturing stage:
July, 2004
It has been a while since our last update. We have been busy.
COMPOSITE SPAR MANUFACTURE/TESTING
All spars have been cooked including the tapered sections. Assembly of all this is complete for the four wings. Static testing was carried out for the assembled spars. All four eventually passed the test (see Thunderbird Projects - Picture gallery).
WING CONSTRUCTION
All four wings (for the two rotors) have been completed. This includes all wing parts (leading edges, trailing edges, suction side,
"Eventually passed the test"? Uh oh.
[There were no updates from December 2001 to July 2004]
December, 2001
COMPOSITE SPAR MANUFACTURE/TESTING
Static testing has been carried out for the CFRP spars. Static tests included both bending and torsion. A large effort was put in manufacturing the tapered mandrel for tapered composite spar production. One tapered spar has been manufactured with disastrous results. The tapered mandrel still requires some work (modifications). Composite spar manufacture continues (including straight sections).
It appears there were construction issues early in the project.
I am certainly not knocking their efforts. However, even the most elegant design can be compromised by sub-optimal manufacturing/implementation resources. I wish them the best in the next iteration.
I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
We don't need wings to fly we're higher life forms than birds so we can emulate what they do, just like ::robot voice:: COOOOMMMPUUUTTTEERRRRRSSS... I HAWRT shrooms
Pilot 1: "pedal faster!"
Pilot 2 (using Scotty voice): "I can't take much more cap'n!"
SMACK!
They hit each other.
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - I took the one the bus load of girls just went down.
Wow did you see the size of the rotors on that thing?
Its a real shame that it didn't work, sounds like the team have been working on it for a long time, which makes me wonder, wheres the tail rotor?
here are the rules of the competition.
The obvious cheats (lighter than air gases, storing energy in a battery) are banned, but you could 'cheat' by using a human to store up a lot of energy in a low-drag rotor that then changes angle of attack to convert the stored energy to lift.
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
Laboratree - Scientific collaboration based on OpenSocial.
Or get MC Pee Pants to sponsor...
"I need candy!"
(tig)
Ignorance and prejudice and fear
Walk hand in hand
BECAUSE it's cool, because I look at it and go "damn, that would be quite the engineering accomplishment right there," because college isn't all about inventing things that need to be invented, it's about expanding the mind to accomplish abstract ideas. Think of every lab that students do in their science courses: what's the point of those? It's old technology, it's certainly been done before. Why aren't freshman chemistry students working on cold fusion or something else the military will jump all over?
Besides, this is impressive science, since the human legs can put out a sustainable 100W, it's the attempt to built something light enough to get off with minimal power. And the $175,000 they've spent over 6 years to educate students and built a prototype is cheap in the education world.
Because military applications are the only point for inventing anything, of course.
I imagine that the purpose was to stimulate interest in:
-Helicopters
-Mechanical Engineering
-Engineering/Science generally - you know, those strange subjects they used to teach in school before everyone decided they were too hard and made the less bright kids feel bad.
To get the prize, dipshit.
Never underestimate the power of human ingenuity. For many years the thought of sustainable human powered flight of any kind was considered an impossibility but in 1979 we saw the Gossamer Albatross cross the English Channel. I believe that sooner or later someone will manage to meet the requirements to win this American Helicopter Society prize. However without a doubt even then human powered flight will be just an interesting curiosity and not of any practical use.
and no one caught such a simple design flaw.
All they had to do was have the outer wing on the bottom.
I would suspect they would have to have gears to get the rotors up to speed but, judging from the picture, I guess they figured the pilot had enough to do, what between holding on for life, pedaling, and praying to the gods.
You are checking your backups, aren't you?
Cheers,
Erick
http://www.busyweather.com/
*calls engine room* Put on more humans!
It was a joke! When you give me that look it was a joke.
...please don't moderate this insightful or anything - not meant to be making statements.
Why don't they build a regular looking helicopter that uses something like a bicycle transmission? I mean, getting the rotors to spin at first would seem kind of hard, but once they're up to speed for that gear shift to the next one. You would probably go through a hundred gears, but in my mind that seems right?
Is it possible someone did the math and figured out people can't generate enough lift to keep themselves in the air (the more people you add, the heavier it gets).
So once they figured this out, they thought it would be funny to watch people try? I'm having flashbacks to the movie "Chicken Run."
Southeastern Virginia REPRESENT!
The team used a counter-rotating design. The outer wing rotates clockwise and the inner wing counter-clockwise. The outer wing which is situated above the inner wing naturally flex and hangs down. It was hanging down to the point at which each wing made contact and shattered into countless pieces rendering thousands of man hours and about $30,000 worth of materials useless.
The human body constantly generates an approximate 200 watts
You mean the average human...
Lance Armstrong can sustain power outputs around 600 watts, and several people (most competative amatuer cyclists) are capable of a ~1 minute burst of over 1250 watts.
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
How much difference would there be in air pressure between the top and bottom of each rotor?
It's been a while since my last fluid mechanics class, but wouldn't the low-pressure above the bottom rotor "suck" the top rotor downward every time the two rotors overlapped each other while spinning?... causing the top and bottom rotors to bounce (if ever so slightly) up and down?
you know, those strange subjects they used to teach in school before everyone decided they were too hard and made the less bright kids feel bad.
Screw the subjects... I'd be happy if we could at least get back to the point where we're not intentionally holding brighter people back or trying to keep their accomplishments covered up so we don't hurt the dumb and average people's feelings.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
because I look at it and go "damn, that would be quite the engineering accomplishment right there," because college isn't all about inventing things that need to be invented, it's about expanding the mind to accomplish abstract ideas
Your post was excellently written and proves that mine incited the exact debate that I wanted. I just wanted to see how many people out there are still interested in doing something to do it, not for fame, etc. Personally, I feel that this would garner more merit were it done of someone's own volition instead of for prize money. However, I hate to say it, but I remain a naysayer - I do not think this will happen, and should it happen, would never become universally accepted. Pedal-cars exist now. How many people do you see pedalling down the street?
The weight isn't as important as a little forethought.
It has to be human powered? Fine...put Joe Powersource on it...let him peddle like mad. Store that up in a flywheel or other such reservoir. Let Joe keep peddling one more minute while you tap the flywheel to get the darn thing in the air and help hold it there for a minute.
Eh...then again, I didn't read the rules for this thing - but I'd be looking for the easiest solution the rules will allow rather than the most elegant one. You are trying to win 20k...not the nobel prize.
The art of flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.
(S(SKK)(SKK))(S(SKK)(SKK))
I was a member of a team way back in around 1993 that was going for the Sikorski Challenge, which I believe was similar to this one. At the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana our project, named the X-391 Dragonfly, was to hover at 1 meter for I forget how many minutes. We got as far as building the main rotor from carbon fiber/kevlar/foam injection with a custom made oven/vacuum bag contraption as well as designing the 'cockpit' the rider would sit in. It was a great experience even if it never "got off the ground" pardon the pun.
You are only popular on the Internet.
I believe the only way we could create human-powered aircraft is when the components (mostly wing area) was large and light enough to overcome thrust-drag ratios.
POINT 1: Can someone comment on the maximum sustained (3 minute duration) power output of a well trained human body? I believe it's less than one horsepower... ("he was stronger than a horse"), but not by much.
Regardless, it seems to me the components on a controllable helicopter include a Sikorski rotor assembly (that allows different angles to be put on a blad depending on it's position in a rotation). That dictates towards rotor blades that can occilate rapidly, and thus can very strongly stand up to high-speed torsions as well as flexing.
POINT 2: Since the blade structure is complex, and the rotors must be quite powerful, it seems to me that dictates tight restraints on design given the weight must be severely limited. Is there any discussion of exotic materials used in any other news article? I suspect a lot. What would the rotor blades be made from, standard materials like commerical helicopters?
POINT 3: I suppose the competition prevents someone from using a power storage device like a big battery or flywheel that a person can pump up to accumulate energy?
POINT 4: Does "Human Powered" mean chemically? Suppose I dried and accumulated enough of my own "dung", then burned it to distill alcohol, then used that alcohol as fuel in a conventional helicopter, it would be "human powered"... (grin).
Unitarian Church: Freethinkers Congregate!
Have they actually ever got the thing off the ground? I mean surely you test these things before you go off to the competition infront of 1000's of people? or did they just finish it and think ah, dang, we really should just stick a tarp over it and leave it until the big day, no use just having a quick go now.. maybe with a video camera. Actually knowing most engineering projects im guessing they just finished building the thing in the morning!
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
So not only am I paying top dollars to fly to europe, now I'm going to have to pedal for 8 hours too? Great.
Eh.
Attention passengers, we're preparing for take off. Please put your seats in the upright positions and your feet on the pedals. If you notice a fellow passenger failing to pedal, please quietly alert a stewardess that you suspect terrorism.
its one of the rules for the competition. a big rubber band would violate the rule and disqualify them.
HA! HA!
The pilot could pedal for a minute or so prior to liftoff and tighten a coil spring, which would be used for the intital takeoff, just to get the blades up to speed faster. Don't know if that would violate the rules though.
if you put weights in the rotors to give them a large mass like a flywheel, then use your angle of attack cheat. would that violate the energy storage rule?
that the theory "helicopters can't fly; they're just so ugly that the Earth repels them" is incorrect. Oh well, back to the old drawing board...
Just imagine how more evolved the today bicycles are compared to the ones 100 years ago, and how many people now go at work with a bicycle compared to those 100 years ago...
The only way I can imagine this working is with a really strong spring that weighs almost nothing being used to store a few hours of pedaling, to be released over a period of 3 minutes. Maybe in 100 years, when we have nano-technology to make everything out of carbon-nanotubes and diamond monofilament, okay, maybe then. But from the looks of it, they'll add that to the "cheats" list.
I'm surprised they didn't just come out and say "Make a working pedal-power helicopter out of granite and mud. You may use power tools, but only those made of pudding."
Climbing Mt Everest is a difficult, but sane, goal. Climbing the smoke from a campfire is nuts, no matter what school you're studying at. (yes, even MIT.) Anyone who has ever tried climb the rope in gym class knows how hard it is to lift oneself three feet off the ground. And that's with a nice, solid rope in your hands!
This reminds me of the Dilbert cartoon where they are supposed to build an integrated global supply chain using only post-it notes and a toothpick.
This is a great argument against the use of psychedelics when reviewing project specifications. I'm sure the kids had fun, though. Good for them.
"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
"d'Oh!" ~Homer
I guess there goes my dream of being a human powered .. helicopter ... pilot. Soaring through the ... 3-meter-sphere. Okay, nevermind.
A team of University of British Columbia engineering students tried to win the $20,000 US prize offered by the American Helicopter Society.
Since when is Canada part of America?
=)
Dewey, you fool! Your decimal system has played right into my hands!
"the atmospheric conditions caused a dangerous imbalance in the craft's two rotor blades: the bottom blade was producing lift while the top blade wasn't." Sounds to me that what really happened was that they tried to save weight and didn't make the upper blades, which are longer, torsionally stiff enough. This caused a phenomenon similar to aileron reversal: as you produce lift, you produce a nose-down pitching moment which can elastically twist the blades, and may be capable of reversing the direction of lift. If this is what happened, then I can easily see the upper blades flapping down into the lower set of blades.
This aileron reversal effect is actually a fairly hot research topic in the rotorcraft community. People are trying to exploite it by using embeded actuators to control trailing edge flaps to create a pitching moment to twist rotor blades and thereby eliminate the swashplate for primary control.
...russians are rather fond of using the dual counterrotating design.
t tp://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=123084/ /www.aeronautics.ru/kamov/ka5201.jpga eronautics.ru/archive/vvs/ka27-01.htm. zap16.com/mil%20fact/kamov%20Ka-50.htm
http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=056899
h
http:
http://www.
http://www
We all know that BA from the A-team won't fly, and he is the only one which can power it right!
I only read slash. for the articles...
not getting off the ground makes it difficult to crash
...
That's not the only danger though. If you read the competition rules at vtol.org, it's clear that the crew is allowed to burn their clothes, hair, and limbs to generate lift.
Personally, I hope that none of them is quite that committed to the challange. Maybe if the prize were closer to a million
I think someone would produce more spectacular results if one were to build a rocket onto a Schwinn like Bob Lazar's www.unitednuclear.com/jetplans.htm
and add wings...
then again, maybe it was Bob on a flying Schwinn, over Area 51, after all.
Props to Bob and his alien craft reverse engineering!
Since you only have to store then energy for a minute, why not use a gearing system to store energy into a flywheel and then release it to supplement what you are still generating for the 3 minutes. you would also have to use variable pitch propellers or possibly a gearing system that allows you to charge it without moving the blades.
A spring would violate the "No devices for storing energy either for takeoff or for use in flight shall be permitted." section.
Two rotors? The blades are so big the drag will make it really hard just to sustain RPMs. If the rotors have independent speeds of course they will smack each other given they are nearly in the same plane.
Can't tell from the pictures if there really is a gear shift but it doesn't look like it.
Add a gearshift and use one pair of lift blades as well as a tail rotor
Shorter blades are likely better. The long blades may require fewer RPMs but the tips of the long blades will be really moving (v = wr) anyways.
A reasonable design is to take a real helicopter, strip the engine and other paraphernalia out of it and install a multi-person pedal system. Then test the endurance of an average person carrying a weight up a flight of stairs for one minute. Take 1/2 to 2/3 (maybe 1/4 or 1/5 depending on helicopter efficiency) of the maximum weight carryable, divide the weight of the helicopter by this weight to obtain the number of people required to pedal
Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
See?
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
It's a learning experience. The early air pioneers encountered similar problems when first attempting to add heavy calibre automatic weapons onto aircaft. After the first trial run, they quickly realised that the firing of bullets had to be synchronised to the rotation of the main propellor. I don't know if the inventor had a surname of Klunk or not.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
>
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
You obviously haven't heard about the Canadian Army's Sea King helicopters which cost $000's per day to maintain. With a human-powered helicopter, Canada could cheaply replace all of its dozen or so copters with these, and gain more maneuverability, speed, and reliability! Even if the thing never leaves the ground...
18.) IS THE PILOT A PROFESSIONAL CYCLIST?
The pilot is not a professional cyclist. He is a professional engineer
As a fellow engineer I would like to point out this design flaw.
Seriously though, having a professional cyclist would make a world of difference. Even their Ironman triathlete Engineer (who specalizes in endurace, not 1 minute intervals) is no match for the power output of a pro bike rider.
How many people do you see pedalling down the street?
It's impossible to walk around my town without seeing hundreds (thousands?) of two-wheeled 'pedal-cars'. But then I do live in Cambridge (UK).
This seems like an interesting project, but it seems to lack an application. The question I have is "what next?" if they succeed.
Helicopters aren't an efficient means of travel. I believe it was an interview with Sikorsky where he stated that a helicopter would never be faster than a plane, never be more efficient than a plane, and several other arguments against them. However, the purpose of a helicopter is not to improve efficiency, it's to perform functions that can't be done with other vehicles. Helicopters can move over terrain that cars cannot. They can hover in one place to perform tasks like rescues that cannot be done with a plane.
None of the areas where helicopters are great tools seem like they would benefit from a project like this. Most of the applications where helicopters are useful require the ability to do more than move a single person and no cargo a short distance. That's just my perception, please correct me with examples if you disagree.
A human powered airplane could be used for transportation and the research could help in designing more efficient airplanes. Or it could be applied to ultralight design. It could become a means of transportation for those who are more into something fun than getting somewhere quickly.
While the human powered helicopter seems like an interesting idea, are there practical (from an engineering, not commercial point of view) applications for the results?
Makes me glad I previewed it 7 times hehehe.
Yeah, some people like to mod comments down just because of who posted them. I get even with those people by moderating fairly instead. We'll see who still has excellent karma in 6 months. Yesterday I got modded troll, and it was up to +4 insightful by end of the day. The comment I posted kvetching about the retarded moderation was modded offtopic. And you know what? I'm glad some fool wasted his mod points on that.
Don't cry for me, Argentina-er, AKAImBatman. But, I do appreciate the kindness.
"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
"d'Oh!" ~Homer
Unfortunately, we in the US do not share your energy preservation ideas. We would much rather drive up the price of oil at an alarming rate. :)
Those hosers are trying to steal our American helicopter prize money eh! And further more, what's this meters crap, I'm an American you insensitive clod!
---
Those who can, do
Those who can't, teach
Those who don't know how, supervise
I'm all for fun projects like this in colleges and universities, and I can see the immense wealth of knowledge and experience it will gain those involved in the project. Now, if this were a government project, I would jump on it in a second as being completely pointless and wasteful of resources (money and minds).
Hell, it's certainly got me wanting to go out to try and built a backyard helicopter just for the fun of the challenge. But I suppose I should finish that two-man personal submarine first....
When the Wright brothers were kids, they received a helicopter-like toy as a present... They decided to duplicate it by building a larger scale replica. The thing failed to take off and was very dissappointing. They learned from their mistake (power needed to scale up more than in a linear fashion for the higher payload), and they went on to contribute to the field anyway. :-)
..humans may be turned into a battery cell, but they may not necessarily generate a lot of power :D
http://efil.blogspot.com/
Get some hamsters and put them inside wheels. Woo hoo! Hamster-powered chopters!
If they wouldn't have made the pilot smoke a 4 gram crack rock it might not have went fast enough to break itself. Of course it probably doesn't help much that it looks like a helicopter made out of toothpicks.
If carrots got you drunk, rabbits would be fucked up. - Comedian Mitch Hedberg R.I.P. 03/30/68-2/24/05
Why not try a few politicians. Then you could have a hot air powered chopper. Which would never fail because it would never run out of hot air perpetual motion
"The result was an ugly collision between the two less than one minute after the team made its first attempt at flight, around 11 a.m. Seventeen minutes later -- after a roll of cellophane was used to repair the damaged wing -- the team tried again."
That doesn't sound like massive damage to me, if they were able to patch it up with a roll of cellophane -- in 17 minutes. Sounds like part of the blade cracked or got smashed in, and that's it.
At which point, they continued the test:
"This time, the chain connecting pilot Peter Hudson's pedals to the top rotor snapped. Continued problems with the chain led Georgallis to finally abort the day's mission."
Sounds like they decided to give up before they did any real damage to the helicopter. So, rendering thousands of hours at $30,000 dollars wasted? I don't think so.
People have a way of blowing things way out of proportion, don't they?
Would it be considered cheating?
My rights don't need management.
Douglas Adams said it in HHGG.
There are a decent number of pedal-powered gliders, brought about largely because a well designed ultralight aircraft will fly without them, for a while at least.
Now, helicopter. It is no accident that no one has ever successfully glided a helicopter in to land. They have the aerodynamic qualities of a blue whale. Even if you could get it to work, and I honestly have no doubt that they can, at least far enough to get three meters off the ground, or whatever it was they needed. As for actually flying anywhere? Not only does manuvering seem like it would be really awkward, but the effort involved would be ridiculous.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Looking at the pictures and the description of what went wrong, it looks like they needed more clearance between the top and bottom rotors. The Russian Helix, with the same eggbeater setup, has probably got about 5 feet of clearance between blades that are much stiffer to begin with. The Canadian appeared to have maybe a foot, with blades that are probably just as big, if not larger, but much less stiff. Finally, I'm sure that their hub probably had a little bit of play in it due to it's light weight that would become evident in any sort of wind. Overall though, I like the eggbeater design because it provides the necessary countertorque while still providing lift. Plus, they were able to repair it with cellophane in 17 minutes and made a second attempt! Unfortunately, the chain broke. Maybe they should've gone with a SRAM powerlink?
Also, the article stated incorrectly that the helicopter didn't have enough buoyancy. Buoyancy is a force due to differences in density of fluids and supports blimps and boats. The proper term is lift, which is pressure-related and makes wings and water-skis work. A nitpick that someone else already mentioned, but that comment has gotten buried in the responses.
A final point to those wondering about the feasibility of the project: The article (hint) states that two other teams have gotten craft to fly, they just haven't gotten high enough.
It's more the prestige of winning the competition than the money at this point, as well as the abilities (and job prospects) that come out of working on team based projects.
... the first human-powered cross-Channel flight. I know one of the guys who was on the support boat for it, and who was heavily involved with the project. They figured it was easier to get a cyclist and teach them to fly an aircraft, than to get a pilot and train them up as a champion cyclist.
Haha, aren't you smart.
Read the fucking rules:
"4.1.4 No devices for storing energy either for takeoff or for use in flight shall be permitted. Rotating aerodynamic components, such as rotor blades, used for lift and/or control are exempt from consideration as energy storing devices."
Wow, it seems you're not smarter than a committee of experienced engineers, after all, eh?
They DID crash ..
But before the rotors were able to produce enough buoyant force they hit each other.
The top wing was hanging down a bit, but not so much that contact was inevitable.
In order to start the machine they had runners on each corner helping the wings get started. One of the inner wing runners was pulling down as he ran, causing his opposite runner to let go, and that side to lift, colliding with the outer wing.
The collision wasn't nearly as dramatic as you describe (fortunatly). One piece of styrofoam fell off, and some cellophane was ripped. Possibly the chain was damaged slightly as well, causing the later problems with the chain.
What happens if your hamstring cramps with 10 M. of altitude?
4
Presuming there's some seriousness to the question, I at first thought "autorotation" would be the answer but it's my understanding (from Q 10 in the FAQ) that the pilot/pedaler has NO CONTROL other than the amount of power put into the pedals (which seems odd - are they sure it won't tip over or drift?). I don't see how high it is expected to go, but 10 meters seems awfully high. Q 4 says others have flown, as high as 8 inches (20cm):
http://batman.mech.ubc.ca/~hph/faq.html#
Tag lost or not installed.
One day I was at the south end of campus, exploring the woods, when I step out from the trees and it turns out I'm in a (mostly) fenced compound for the plant ops. There's lots of junk lying around behind an old warehouse, bricks, lamposts, spools of wire. So I look around, and I find a slightly damaged solar powered car under a layer of dead leaves. I think in a year this helicopter will be sitting right next to the car.
I believe they nearly got rid if the gifted/talented (In elementary/middle school) and Honors programs at my high school because of just such complaints from parents of those kids who didn't get in.
As if high school didn't hold me back enough as it was... High school without even honors math/science? *shudder*.
Thank God for taking part-time classes at Rutgers my senior year of HS when I ran out of things to take there.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
I love that show (that was actually the first episode I ever saw). Unfortunately I'm the only one around here (my office) that seems to enjoy it.
Thank god for roads that don't suck. Cobblestones are hell on the ass...
Someone forgot to drink their RedBull! Because as we all know, RedBull gives you wings! RedBull Flugtag!!!
As opposed to just being a tool?
Didn't get close to the 9m / 1min requirements, but they did manage to get off the ground, over a decade ago! http://www.calpoly.edu/~wpatters/helo.html
IAARowing Engineer
Use an ergometer, or an "erg," as the rowing community likes to call them. I'm an above-average rower, and I could sustain almost 700W for about a minute or so. There are people out there who do much better than me, as well.
An erg allows you to use your back and arm muscles as well as your legs. Three sources of power is certainly better than just one.
I don't believe it would be too hard to hook up several ergs to spin one rotor. I'm pretty sure this would be the best way to go about doing this project.
At 10 I was f*cking playing Lego.. for Christ's sake.
Next generation nerds, you see.
Rule #24b: The human powering the helicopter must survive the flight.
This would keep teams from setting fire to the unlucky pilot and powering the helicopter with a steam engine, too. =D
Light weight rotors and other mechanisms developed for this type of effort could later be applied to low-powered, low-RPM craft that might be more useful.
>> However, I hate to say it, but I remain a naysayer - I do not think this will happen, and should it happen, would never become universally accepted. Pedal-cars exist now. How many people do you see pedalling down the street?
That sould do it!
Excellent point. Had not thought of that. Makes you wonder how long it will take until such parts reach production widespread.
Whatever happenned to the team that built a large bladed helicopter for this event, when it was first started - I remember it was a university team, and the helicopter had one rotor, but was tip propelled by props on the end, which were powered by the rider via thin cable (monofilament?) which was wrapped around hubs on the axles of the propellers, and was drawn in by pedalling. By having it tip powered, they eliminated the extra rotor (as in the current contender's design), as well as not needing a tail rotor (as in conventional designs) - and since it was powered from the tips, there was no center torque to counteract...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
They should fill those wings with Helium next time.
Without links to sources reproting these facts, you are, at best, as bad as those who you try to refute.
I would love to read about these facts you report, if accurate they would likely change my outlook.
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
....I think not.
The design schematics claim that: "the wing span is greater then that of a 737"
And the composite structure that they built looks to have been so heavy that a "biker" could not throw it into the air. Just think for a minute the size and weight of fan propelled gliders and how much lift they produce. From what I can see a simple lay man would have had better perspective on this design. Every picture and schematic you look at you see them fashioning parts that look like they could be used for a gass powered plane...None of them even look remotely suitable for a Lance Armstrong powered plane, let alone whoever they found to fly it.
and they can fly hundreds of kilometers. See Daedalus project here, for example.
________
a war on terrorism? How can we end a war on a method?
Look at vaporware.
Hear about the 2 dismantled Russian nuclear warheads that were found in a bunker that was covered by 10 meters of concrete?
A missile containing radioactive material is not a nuclear warhead, not unless you want to claim the US used "nuclear weapons" in both Iraq wars. AFAIK, they're missiles armed with the same depleted uranium that the warheads we've been saturating Iraq with use.
but it was reported hard and heavy on almost every major radio outlet.
Given that they've been a principle source of misinformation, it's not surprising you're so misinformed.
Your long list of cites is pretty much worthless. A bunch of articles about the same handful of shells dating back to the 80s. A little bit of lost inventory was bound to show up. It's not like we're particularly good at keep track of our chemical/biological agents.
Long-debunked reports and rumors of captured weapons. Most of the articles are the initial news reports that Fox News trumpeted across the airwaves. Naturally, Fox and Rush didn't give you any follow-up.
Honestly, if we actually found nukes in Tikrit, don't you think the Bush adminisrtation would still be talking about it? Posting several articles about the same assinine claim doesn't make it true.
The Bush administration's chief weapons inspector has come out and outright said there were no WMDs. We've controlled the country for over a year and all we've found is a few decades old shells and Bush is reduced to claiming we invaded because Saddam had "weapons of mass destruction program-related activities"? Quite a ways off from the mushroom cloud they were claiming was going to be the smoking gun, isn't it?
What happened to all those WMDs that the Bush administration repeatedly claimed to know the exact location of? Seems like a few of them should've shown up.
I wonder if this thing has shifters like a bike. (Based on the photo of the transmission and the single chainring I would say not.) Breaking a chain is a symptom of mashing the pedals too hard instead of gearing down and spinning. (In a recumbent you can really apply a lot of force that way because you can push your back against the seat... very bad for your knees though.) Perhaps they ought to gear down, spin, and keep shifting as the rotor speed increases. That is probably the most efficient way to get power.
Political correctness will kill the country.
this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
Interesting you immediately call me misonformed when I have obviously read and heard BOTH sides of the argument to a very apparent large extent. I read the Liberal rags and I listen to the Conservative radios. I read FoxNews and then listen to the opinions of the very leftist Slashdot crowd. Calling me misinformed only shows a lack of thought on your part. I'll give you some slack, it is Friday and you are probably tired as well.
The fact the these same claims showed up in several locations does not make them bunk, it only helps to solidify them.
As a side, do you really have the gullibility to believe that NO weapons were shipped out to Syria? That's why I posted one specific link to that story. There were caravans of trucks that moved across into Syria leading up to and during the beginning of the attacks. Oh, wait, I'm sure those were food rations and medicine supplies. No way could those have been truckloads of weapons being moved and dispursed to groups.
The simple to see for anyone with cognitive abilites fact is a ruthless, heartless threat to the entire middle east and supporter of violence in America had either the weapons or was actively trying to get weapons, and needed to be stopped. The pacifist people are the first ones bitching that we had no business being there, but when either he, or one of the people he supplied and supported, killed innocent Americans (or innocent people of whatever country you are in), they then become the first people bitching that our bad intelligence let it happen and we should have done more to stop him. Well, this time we did do more, and the entire area is safer for it. But wait, they've gotta bitch about that too right?
Is Bush a good president, no probably not, but was the right thing done here to help make the world a little safer? YES.
Knightfall
Suppose I have a mass of 75kg and want to rise to a height of 3 meters above ground in 30 seconds. The power required is (75kg)*(9.81 m/s^2)*(3m)/30s, which is about 75 Watts, which is possibly doable. Granted, 3m in 30 seconds is excruciatingly slow ...
Human being (n.): A genetically human, genetically distinct, functioning organism.
What an amazing line. How the hell did he get to be president again?
I would still like to know what I said that was wrong.
Or are you a troll?
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...