Slashdot Mirror
Personal Flying Machine Contest Gets 600 Entries (fastcompany.com)
"A giant egg equipped with rotors and 'Transformers'-style robots are among some of the creative designs submitted in a $2 million dollar contest to dream up new ways of flying," reports CNN.
"GoFly, a $2 million competition to design personal flying machines backed by Boeing, has announced its first round of most promising designs out of 600 entries from around the world," writes harrymcc . "Proposed vehicles need to fly for at least 20 miles, at 35 miles an hour; many of the ideas look a bit like airborne motorcycles." Fast Company reports: "There's been a convergence of all of these breakthrough technologies that makes this the first moment in time where we have the ability to make people fly," says Gwen Lighter, who dreamed up the GoFly prize, recruited Boeing to bankroll it, and now serves as CEO. Many of the advances come from the world of drones -- "high-efficiency motors, high-capacity batteries, and cheap navigation and stabilizing technologies that keep even newbies on course and out of danger....
Their prototypes have to achieve vertical takeoff and landing (called VTOL), eliminating the need for an airport runway... The craft have to be small enough to fit within an 8.5-foot circle, and they have to be safe and manageable for anyone to operate -- "not just engineers or daredevils... GoFly's Lighter emphasizes that safety is a key requirement in judging. She says that whatever wins will be well on the way to meeting requirements of the FAA -- and regulatory bodies in other countries -- for mainstream operation. FAA staffers (in a non-official capacity) are even among GoFly's expert advisors.
Best of all, every participant -- even those who win the prize money -- "are free to take their innovations anywhere. They retain all intellectual property rights."
"GoFly, a $2 million competition to design personal flying machines backed by Boeing, has announced its first round of most promising designs out of 600 entries from around the world," writes harrymcc . "Proposed vehicles need to fly for at least 20 miles, at 35 miles an hour; many of the ideas look a bit like airborne motorcycles." Fast Company reports: "There's been a convergence of all of these breakthrough technologies that makes this the first moment in time where we have the ability to make people fly," says Gwen Lighter, who dreamed up the GoFly prize, recruited Boeing to bankroll it, and now serves as CEO. Many of the advances come from the world of drones -- "high-efficiency motors, high-capacity batteries, and cheap navigation and stabilizing technologies that keep even newbies on course and out of danger....
Their prototypes have to achieve vertical takeoff and landing (called VTOL), eliminating the need for an airport runway... The craft have to be small enough to fit within an 8.5-foot circle, and they have to be safe and manageable for anyone to operate -- "not just engineers or daredevils... GoFly's Lighter emphasizes that safety is a key requirement in judging. She says that whatever wins will be well on the way to meeting requirements of the FAA -- and regulatory bodies in other countries -- for mainstream operation. FAA staffers (in a non-official capacity) are even among GoFly's expert advisors.
Best of all, every participant -- even those who win the prize money -- "are free to take their innovations anywhere. They retain all intellectual property rights."
Because there are no roads in many places, and you have heard of the concept of rush hour
Iâ(TM)ve never seen an 8.5 foot circular parking spot. If it canâ(TM)t fit in a parking spot itâ(TM)s not a flying car. How about a competition for that? It can be built with jet engines. It will be loud as F though.
"Can anyone explain why I or anyone else should care about personal flying machines?"
Saves some wear and tear on the land when I go prospecting. Will allow me to get to higher elevations with greater ease. You can avoid most of the land-based traffic!
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
There are many obvious possibilities. Besides the simple excitement of personal flight, even quite expensive devices would be invaluable for remote survey work, for emergency work above the reach of ladders among taller modern buildings, and floodplain emergency work when roads or entire towns are unapproachable due to flooding.
"Can anyone explain why I would need/want..." is exactly what everyone said when the Wright brothers were tinkering around with planes and when Henry Ford was marketing automobiles at the start, and for innumerable other inventions, etc.
I agree that there may be no need to the average person now, but pushing technology can significantly influence the future for the better.
You and atomicalgebra should hook up and snort some transuranic dust, then fuck. Nothing bad can happen, he swears!
Rescuing people from high buildings and mountain searches. If you had a drone that could carry a single person or unravel a zip-line to carry people from one high-rise building to another. Maybe just a nylon cord so that a zip line could be hauled up.
We still haven't fully explored the oceans. A single sonar system can scan a range between 1000 and 10,000 meters. Oceans are 1000 miles wide. Just 1000 drones working autonomously underwater (hydrodynamics are similar to aerodynamics) and we could scan an entire ocean in a few weeks.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
If you are seriously not interested in PFMs, then you are not a nerd, and you are on the wrong website. Go back to Pinterest.
Now, to get back on topic, what material is everyone else using to 3D print propellers?
Can anyone explain why I or anyone else should care about personal computers? How does this story affect anyone at all? I'll be censored to -1 without a doubt, but someone needs to ask the tough questions and inquire as to why this matters. Why would anyone need a personal computer? This effort would be far better invested into improving already proven technologies like the abacus. I'll be censored to -1, and that will stand as evidence that people would prefer to bury my question instead of answer it. It will show that I am right and that this story doesn't matter in the least.
Fixed that for you, it's a common typo.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Rush hour becomes dodge hour. Or failed-rotor hour.
Information processing is not like moving mass.
It's a common logical fallacy.
Autogyros have been available for a long time. They are trying to reinvent the wheel.
Can anyone explain why I or anyone else should care about personal flying machines?...
It's a sensible question. Let me fly in the face of sth.
/. is news for nerds, stuff that matters. /. category.
/. community. Even if it's just one nerd.
/. cares. Someone else.
Airplanes are technology, a bona fide
Airplanes have a lot of fans in the nerd communities.
Therefore, a personal flying machine contest does matter to some in the
ipso facto, someone on
Me.
I confess, I've gone to Air Shows to see the warbirds of old, and to watch the Blue Angles do their thing. Even got a ride in a way-too-old cargo plane once. They opened these huge doors as they flew to the mountains and back. Probably just to give us noobs a thrill. It worked. Went right up there and looked down. Better than anything Disney.
[citation needed]
Aksaray'da öyle felekten bir gece çalmak isteyeceiz birbirinden güzel bayanlara bu site araclyla size ulama frsat veriyoruz.Top sizde. Aksaray bayan escort +90 539 896 18 30 - http://www.istanbulguzellikmer...
Because it's the next big "hack."
Non of this will be practical until a more concentrated form of energy storage is discovered. The jet pack, which was invented in the 60â(TM)s, is the best design ever for this but once again generating thrust is and has been the problem. Large fan blades are more efficient but not practical in this application.
Look up ultralights. They are about as the same price as a small used car, and about as fuel efficient, but they need runways for takeoff and landing.
1) Computer controlled flight is a computationally simpler problem, than driving down a populated road. So, bigger delivery drones is an outcome.
2) The V-22 Osprey, while a real world, long range, VTOL aircraft, is expensive to maintain, and similar design, which requires less maintenance is desirable.
Doing some modifications to this device could be a funny way to join the challenge...
[Reading comprehension needed]
Typical Silicon Valley ignorance. All these concepts were invented in the 1950s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
It's from the 60-70s. The military wasn't interested because it's not really more useful(for them) than a chopper or light aircraft, outside of very specific scenarios. But it's not a new idea.
This effort would be far better invested into improving already proven technologies like electric cars
Competitions like this are meant to spur innovation from smaller teams of people who might not otherwise develop their ideas into working technologies. A $1 million grand prize is a big deal to those people.
Already proven technologies already have companies investing billions into them and thousands of people working in R&D. $1 or $2 million more or less in funding isn't going to make any significant difference for them.
tells you that Boeing & Co are in the game - Personal Aircraft Game.
What they don't know is what competition they are up against ala Elon Musk and SpaceX. Not to repeat that faux pas
they're investing in a game. Show me yours first Game; its money well spent.
"this the first moment in time where we have the ability to make people fly". Really? Isn't Boeing already really good at that?
If this is strictly single person flight... jetpacks are a thing. Still not "first"
captcha: rephrase
There are many obvious possibilities. Besides the simple excitement of personal flight, even quite expensive devices would be invaluable for remote survey work,
A job better-handled by UAV.
for emergency work above the reach of ladders among taller modern buildings,
Do you imagine that there's a lot of this? Better solved with helis which can carry more than one person.
and floodplain emergency work when roads or entire towns are unapproachable due to flooding.
Also better solved with helis.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
There is a dude on hackaday that 3d printed props. But they're just terrible, fat and brittle.
Practical 3d printed props. Titanium...printer is pricy.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
From a typical US municipal code:
Parking Space Dimensions.
The minimum size of a standard parking space shall be nine feet wide and eighteen feet long. Parking spaces within enclosed garages shall have an interior dimension of at least ten feet wide and twenty feet long. The minimum size of a compact parking space shall be eight feet wide and sixteen feet long
Sizes vary a bit depending on land cost and typical vehicle sizes. In rural Texas, where land is cheap and large pickups are common, parking spaces are larger than in Tokyo, where land is more expensive and vehicles [and the people in them :) ] trend smaller.
Or for the worse.
The effort to create such a device is a difficult scientific, technological, and engineering problem.
Maybe you aren't interested, but if someone can create a personal flying machine that works well and is affordable, I might buy one.
Even if the effort is ultimately unsuccessful, it may spawn other useful technoligies: better batteries, motors, materials, UAVs, etc.
Personal empowerment, or the opportunity to sell people the same. Imagine, you're stuck in a traffic jam, surrounded by idiots impinging on your personal space, road rage rising - now imagine you can simply take off and soar away from it all, like the Spinners in "Blade Runner". There's a class of people who would pay a lot of money for that freedom.
IMO, the most practical personal vehicle would be a car first and a flying machine second. It would spend 90% of the time on the ground and 10% of time in the air, using the air as a way to fly over traffic jams and traffic lights. If you start from that assumption instead of the other way around, the power requirements become a lot more manageable.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Are any of these real engineered designs - where the main technical challenges of energy storage, power density, noise and safety have been addressed? Otherwise its just like then endless versions of the Moller "sky car", which is beautiful, but which I also remember from the late 80s, without any production models.
People have been talking about flying cars and have flown some test models since the 1930s. Useful "sky cars" in the form of helicopters have existed for well over half a century. What is missing is a solution to the difficult technical issues that make them impractical for mass use (beyond what we have now for helicopters). Pretty fiberglass shapes really doesn't address the basic issue.
Does any existing unmanned aerial vehicle have the mission flexibility of a human pilot? Especially in difficult circumstances, such as near fire or with much of the potential landing areas flooded? While unmanned drones or tethered vehicles have become effective. And putting good hands on a drone, or the ability to assess terrain or set priorities for other personnel, seem quite difficult. Is it cheaper to provide a flying platform, or to design new technologies to support the flexibility of a human crew?
I admit that the prospect is interesting. There was a jet-wing project published in the 1970's, to put first small jet engines and later ducted fans on a pair of strap-on wings to provide personal flight with vertical take-off and landing capability. I'm not sure of the project has ever been completed. But there was this demonstration of a similar project, flown by Yves Rossy in 2013: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Or you could just use a helicopter.
As a Doctor I prescribe you two bullets to the head.
If you start from that assumption instead of the other way around, the power requirements become a lot more manageable.
Unfortunately, you basically have to make it all out of carbon fiber in that case, because otherwise there's no way to get both crash safety and the light weight you're looking for.
It makes a whole lot more sense to have your self-driving car detour to an air terminal, where it can give up its power to charge flying vehicles. Then it can charge all night while it's cheap, and drive in a platoon to get you in the morning.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
In what world will a small helicopter be quiet?
Yeah, because that's what these are. They're small heli's.
The prop noise will be the exact opposite of quiet.
Plus there's the obscene amount of visual clutter that they will cause.
No you don't farking own the sky and you don't have the right to fill it with your toys.
What the fark happened to what we learned in the '60s (after the excesses of the late 40's and 50's)?
Humans need a world that still has some nature left unmolested. The sky is one of the few places that people can look at every day and not see a space over run with buildings and machinery.
I don't get it... this has already been done.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
The rules state a 30 ft circle take-off zone.
Bullshit, you fat, smelly Mexican sack of shit. Now run off and go eat your taco, Paco.
Aww, I was excited to see another reply and then found out it was a lazy troll. How tedious
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Why, when I hear about a "personal flying machine", does this episode of South Park cums to my mind?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I'd love to be a private pilot.
However, there's lots of cost involved.
Getting your private pilot license, costs $$$ for the ground school, $$$ for the hours needed in the air, and then lastly - let's say I get that license. I don't have $250k (that's probably on the light side) for a plane, so that means I either rent or perhaps buy a share in a plane. Then of course, you gotta keep your skills current. Ain't nobody got time for that unless you fly for your company or have a "reason" to fly enough to not get rusty.
Let's get something smaller, lighter, yet safe, and I can take those day trips where it would take hours by car, but minutes by air (in theory ...). I'd be all over that license if one existed. ... and I'm not talking a $100 hamburger. Need to go somewhere that normally takes 5 hours by car (USA)? Takes an hour or so by air. Makes trips like this much more doable.
-Miser
Some slacker kid with ancient blood line invents anti-gravity flying machine for world domination and profit. I call this the zuckerburg effect.
A paramotor is a 50lb backpack-seat arrangement hooked to a soft wing. Your takeoff and landing gear are your legs, climb and sink is controlled purely though the throttle and wing brakes, and turning is done with the wing brakes. You can achieve 35 mph airspeed easily and can go up to 10,000 feet no problem. Typical range is 2-4 hours depending on how much fuel you're willing to carry. Landing is done by cutting the engine and floating down to the ground. They're completely legal to operate, and you don't even need any certifications to fly one.
You're pretty exposed since there really isn't a fuselage, just a frame. Trike designs that incorporate wheels for takeoff/landing gear could be pretty easily given a shiny futuristic skin and submitted with almost no work.
What I'm getting at, is we already have personal flying machines, and this contest is idiotic.