Slashdot Mirror
Australian-Built Hoverbike Prepares For Takeoff
Zothecula writes "Adventurous motorcyclists might be familiar with the thrill of getting airborne at the top of a rise, but the Hoverbike is set to take catching some air to a whole new level. With a 1170 cc 4-stroke engine delivering 80 kW driving two ducted propellers, the inventor of the Hoverbike, Chris Malloy, says with its high thrust to weight ratio, the Hoverbike should be able to reach an estimated height of more than 10,000 feet and reach an indicated airspeed of 150 knots (278 km/h or 173 mph). At the moment these are only theoretical figures as the Hoverbike hasn't been put through its paces yet, but Malloy has constructed a prototype Hoverbike and plans to conduct real world flight tests in a couple of months."
Why even post vaporware stories? totally pointless.
Comes with own complementary casket!
The most epic race series. Get this thing running and get it running NOW!
Hoverbike Applications:
Aerial Cattle mustering
Search and Rescue...
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
With MAGIC!
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
How exactly to they expect this thing to stop?
I see this scenario playing out:
1. Guy goes too fast on hoverbike
2. Kid runs after ball, runs in front of bike
3. Bike attempts to stop by adjusting pitch
4. Bike ends up becoming nearly upright
5. Kid looks at oncoming blades in horror
more like "useless, but cool "
I hope somebody with money to burn backs these guys to get it to actually work.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
I sure wouldn't want to faceplant into the cuisinart on the front of that thing.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
After you start it up, you toss over to:
1. to lower the center of gravity.
2. keep you from taking-off.
# Airspeed Vne - 150 KIAS (untested)
# Hover (out of ground effect) - >10,000ft (estimated)
seriously slashdot, theres a difference between actual news and pure backyard bullshit.
anyone with even the most remote fucking grasp of physics and flight
should be comfortable debunking his claims as a complete lie.
most commercial helicopters stall out at anything greater than 8000ft; most of the ones flying around my city stick to around 600-800 ft ceilings..
The CH-47 Chinook twin rotor helicopter is used by the USAF to rescue climbers
on Mount Denali (McKinley) in AK. It can reach an altitude in excess of 19000 to land at an elevation of around 18000.
The biggest problem at that point is restarting the engines,
so a special storage device directs pure oxygen into the engine inlet to restart.
the highest altitude helicopter currently in existence is the AS350. A pilot named Didier Delsalle of France landed it on the summit of Mount
Everest (8,850 meters) in 2005...and the record is entirely speculative/disputed.
finally, A blackhawk military helicopter with a 1700 horsepower engine still only goes ~190 kias.
Good people go to bed earlier.
How in the world is it flight stabilized? It looks to me like there's nothing keeping it from flipping sideways and pile-driving into the ground. If the center of gravity was lower or there was some advanced computer controller system I could see it working quite well but without that I'm a bit dubious as to its ability to stay off the ground and/or keep the "rider" alive for long.
In case I'm being chased by a thug with a meat tenderizer on his head.
"Slow down, Cowboy! It has been 3 years, 7 months and 26 days since you last successfully posted a comment."
This thing seems like it would be unstable in roll, with the thrust apparently happening at or below the cg height of the vehicle. There might be some gyroscopic stability but I doubt that is enough for the vehicle to be safe under gusts or even manuevering, even though the guy claims some marginal instability is ok in the FAQ (what is the time to double a disturbance in roll attitude for this setup?). For what it's worth, I'm a fourth year aerospace engineering student.
...although the manned ones would probably still get you.
I don't know how they'd catch you, though...
"I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
How would he maintain lateral stability in that thing? Flap his arms? Looks like it would roll over as soon as you gun it. There doesn't appear to be any engineering to take that into account. What is this guys hoping this thing will fly on, hopes and prayers?
So there's my flying car. About damned time.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
When I look at the design, its lack of stability and a rider sitting above the fan, only one thing comes to mind - what a perfect candidate for the darwin awards.
Airplanes have to ability to glide to an extent, helicopters can auto-rotate. I seriously doubt that the rotors on this are big enough to auto-rotate, or that the designer made the calculations necessarily in order to design something that can auto-rotate.
You could use a parachute but parachutes take time to deploy and slow your decent so while effective at higher altitudes, at lower altitudes, like say the altitude at which you would be herding cattle, an engine failure would leave you heading towards the ground without enough time to deploy the chute.
I'd fly this is there were 2 engines such that one engine could power both fans, and 1 engine had enough power to at least hover and make a safe decent. Even then, I'd still probably bring a parachute.
It's a beautiful piece of kit. If this were a Deviant Art sculpture project, I'd be in. The fact that these jokers think it'll actually FLY makes it better.
Looking forward to more tests. I also think this thing will kill a lot of pilots. But whatever.
- Very safe. The hoverbike was designed with safety as the over-riding factor in all design. If you have ever flown and pre-flight checked a helicopter you will appreciate the simplicity of this design. With so many parts on a helicopter - and a large number of single parts that could alone cause catastrophic disaster if they should fail - it is just a matter of time. The hoverbike has as many components as possible with triple redundancy which requires at least 2 other components to fail before you might have a serious airborne failure. This combined with a massive reduction in total parts (compared to a helicopter) and the hoverbike becomes safer and cheaper.
- Parachutes. With the hoverbike you have the choice to wear an emergency parachute and have two explosive parachutes attached to the airframe, with a helicopter you have no such choice. The hoverbike in it's current configuration cannot autorotate (with adjustable pitch propellers it can) but this should not be viewed as a discredit to the design. Engine failure in a helicopter or plane by no means assures you that you will survive a autorotation or glide, as air crash statistics show. The option of removing yourself from the vehicle and descending via parachute to the ground may well save your life
- The propeller blades will have on the next revision (and certainly the final product sold) a fine mesh over the entire ducting, which will stop any wandering hands or large debri from entering the duct.
WAH! TRIPLE REDUNDANCY WITH FEWER PARTS! ZOMG!
THE OPTION OF REMOVING YOURSELF FROM THE VEHICLE!
I want the optional GIANT GYROSCOPE HELMET!
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Why don't the blades have a deeper pitch/depth to them. From what I've heard, this increases the efficiency of the wind sucked underneath.
It's the same with cooling fans. Manufacturers (apart from the previous few) always make the blades super thin. It's really dumb, and it causes them to be much louder and waste more energy. Compare:
http://www.skytopia.com/stuff/fan.jpg
Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
...but in New Zealand, we tinker round with these bad boys
:-)
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/05/29/1257212/Martin-Jetpack-Climbs-5000-Feet-Above-Sea-Level
"Call that a knife? THIS. Is a knife."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xqghpm4gXf4
---
If you check out the Martin Jetpack (http://martinjetpack.com) you will see what this could become, but you'll quickly realise the co$t of getting this from a concept to a practical solution is very expensive. Aviation is an expensive business, and safety issues will dominate. Martin spent 25+ years getting the technology right, and only this year went untethered to 5000ft - and that was with a crash test dummy, and the thing flown by remote control, and also testing the ballistic parachute.
Anything so reliant on the pilot's ability to maintain stable control, will require a sophisticated (computerised) flight control system to keep it safe, and this device looks to be a wee way off that yet. Imagine some Aussie musterer 'hoovering" along at some fantastic speed, and belching after his aussie beer revisited his gills .... could make the keystone cops look somewhat boring.
From the FAQ:
From the summary of vehicle regulations for ultralight aircraft at http://www.ultralightflying.com/ultralight-vehicle-regulations/ultralight-vehicle-regulations.html:
The two items I've emphasized above in bold conflict with current specifications of the prototype: A 30 litre fuel tank and a 150 knots indicated airspeed max. And, the dry weight (105kg) is skirting perilously close to the maximum permissible dry weight of an FAA ultralight, too. They can't afford to add 10kg to the weight of the prototype before going production, or it busts that standard too, and if they're going to a more robust prop design or a bigger engine, it could happen.
And, btw, anyone care to speculate what the power-off stall speed of a direct-lift non-autorotating rotary wing aircraft might be?
So, no, if nothing else changes, the FAA will not accept the Hoverbike as an ultralight.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
His two ass-clown sons need a place to rest their no-nos.
We're way behind on schedule already. They should have happened now.
I really, really hope that this guy and the jetpack guy manages to create a safe and working product. We need flying cars in this world. Why? It was promised so long ago!
01 REDEFINE REALITY.
you don't know what autorotate means in terms of helimacopters?!!!
"Cannot autorotate" means if you lose power to the rotors, you have no lift. ie, you plummet, rather than glide.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
..at least, not under U.S. rules. The bottom speed is slow enough, but the quoted top speed is much too high. Those who point out it probably can't fly as high as quoted are dead on target. Helicopters quote two values: hovering in ground effect (HIGE), and hovering out of ground effect (HOGE). The reason they're quoted is that there is a real problem in getting altitude performance from a rotary wing aircraft. Like all too many new aircraft announcements, the numbers we are quoted appear to be paper calculations, likely by someone not all that well qualified to do the calculations. One of two things is likely to happen: the thing will slide quietly into oblivion, or we'll hear of this spectacular crash. Let's hope it's the former, not the latter.
From a pilot's point of view, that looks hideously unstable and unbelievably unsafe... But I'd sure as hell go fly it. It also looks AWESOME...
I'd rather take this one, because it isn't vaporware...
"I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
As far as I am concerned I was promised things like this the first time I watched Back to the Future.
We'll have to see if this is any less vaporware than the Skycar
http://www.moller.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=50&Itemid=58
I dunno, I want the hoverbike, but I do love The Leader and his Movementarians.
Monstar L
I see, um, fatal flaws. Mainly the ability to self-right, glide or auto rotate. Basically, anything that might go wrong will result in a uncontrolled flight into terrain.
They come in the dark, only in the darkest.
"Aerial Cattle Mustering" (according to the bike's website)
That's exactly what I was thinking of using it for, yes.
Powered-lift / pure-vectored-air-thrust flying machines are by their very nature, unstable and dangerous as hell.
It seems like the Hoverbike seems to be a lame attempt to cash in on the success of the Martin Jetpack.
To me, the Hoverbike looks like a deathtrap: the pilot is sitting above the lift propellers and with a centre of gravity higher than the centre of lift and no apparent method for lateral stabilization it will tip over the moment the pilot leans to far to one side. In their FAQ, they attempt to brush off the stability issue by talking about fixed-wing aircraft: aircraft that don't hover and that have a large tailplane for lateral stability. Also, saying that the aircraft is safer because the pilot can leap off and use their own parachute just seems wrong to me.
Power needed to hover would go down with the square of the rotor diameter. Why not make them, say, 6ft instead of 4ft in diameter -- you'd need less than half the power.
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
This website requires Flash to view photos.
Scientists expect a breakthrough "when pigs fly".
Have gnu, will travel.
With a 1170 cc 4-stroke engine delivering 80 kW driving two ducted propellers, the inventor of the Hoverbike, Chris Malloy,
Wow, those are some impressive stats. He should be able to hover even WITHOUT the hoverbike.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
'cause that works so well for the Osprey twin rotor helicopter.
Maybe if the ducted fan was built inside a rotating rim ...
really?
This thread needs a LOT more comments about CONTROLLABILTY. That thing is going to be completely unstable. 10,000 feet? Ha! It'll flip before it gets to 100 feet.
One simple rule for its versus it's
Progressive would insure that ride...
Its a sad day when 90% of the comments I've read here are from trolls and doubters. Slashdot posts a fascinating article about a really cool new invention and if there is anywhere he should find support it should be here. If everyone says its "snake oil", "don't listen", "don't try", "go away" we'd never have the Wright Brothers who would easily be discounted as inventors tinkering in their workshops today.
He's already facing tough odds and breaking ground. An innovative technology community should understand that.
I know this will probably be marked trolling; just check yourselves. Support instead of heckle.
PS I'm a kiwi. I have no reason to support this team, but damn, tip of my hat to them. Bloody good job Aussie.
The best feature is ensured weight loss. See, if you stop pedaling you fall and die. No excuse now, fatties.
The eternal struggle of good vs. evil begins within one's self.
meh...my flying pig can do 15,000, easy.
Every weekend is 'Australia Time' on Slashdot.
It's when the Aussie (and Aussie-lurvin') so-called Editors get to plaster worthless non-stories all over the site, so long as the "stories" have an Australian connection of some kind.
Surely you've noticed this already, or are you new here?
OK outraged Aussies with mod points, go for it: -1, here I come!
It works well enough for a bicycle, and the rate of the wheels' spin on a bike is actually limited to the relatively slow rate at which you're traveling...
Malloy should make a less than 70kg version. That would not require a pilot's license at least in Finland. (Likely applies to rest of the EU too.)
It seems to have its center of the gravity above the fans, which would make it inherently unstable to ride. Lean a little bit too much to either side and the thing makes a fast U-turn towards the ground which you can't correct.
You know, this concept has been tried at times, with lower center of the gravity and gyroscopes, yet it still has been deemed too dangerous to ride.
I would be more open to believing this if the only video they showed wasn't of the biking looking like it was laying on something while smoke is sucked through the blade. There's photos of it supposedly flying while tethered to the ground, would it really be that hard to show a video of that? Also, half of their photos look more promotional than anything, just the bike posing in front of pretty scenery. How many engineers do you know that take their new prototype and drive all around the country putting it in front of things and taking pictures?
what would evel knievel do?
Inanimate objects don't prepare things. Furthermore, the verb tense is wrong. Someone is preparing it. The infinitive tense of 'prepares' would be something like "He prepares more donuts every day".
Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2225174&cid=36390518 Yes, it appears they do, don't they, drinkypoo?
What kind of softcock anonymously stalks slashdot nerds? You are a sad man.
A very sad, sad little man.
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
I think the biggest problem with this is stability. This would also go for the recent "jet pack" that uses two rotary engines. If you tried to ride this like a bike there would be nothing to keep it from rolling over and smashing to the ground. If the carriage was below the engines it might work. The altitude issue is insignificant. And, it really doesn't have anything to do with hp. The 10,000 feet cap for rotary craft is due to the fact that no one uses diesel engines which would in theory allow you much higher altitudes. This will be interesting to follow though.
...named Alexander "Petey" Kowalksi.