It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Human-powered helicopter rises

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 19 2011 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Human-powered helicopter rises


cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com

Judy Wexler pedaled furiously and, for a few fleeting seconds, achieved what no other human has officially done before — she lifted a human-powered helicopter off the ground.

The flight is still awaiting confirmation from the National Aeronautics Association, but from the perspective of University of Maryland students working on the project, and a video of the attempt, the aircraft appears to have achieved liftoff of 3 to 5 inches, with a hover time of 4 seconds.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An announcement from the aeronautics as
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on May, 19 2011 @ 06:55 AM
link   
This is not the first time human-powered flight has been achieved, the first authenticated take-off and landing was accomplished 9 November, 1961. Current distance record for human-powered flight was set in 1988 on 23 April for a distance of 74 miles.

The first flight for a human-powered helicopter was achieved on 10 December, 1989 for 7.1 seconds at a height of 20 cm. This will be a world record for the first woman in a human-powered helicopter.

cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


edit on 19-5-2011 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 07:16 AM
link   
watched the video and i cant see it lifting the four legs at the same time....
looks like a case of wishful thinking...



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 07:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Erongaricuaro
 


Really, does it matter??
I find no interest in this at all sorry.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 07:49 AM
link   
Hmm... they are going to have to improve their lift efficiency on that thing to make any kind of records. The design is interesting - but they probably would have been better off to go with a similar three-rotor design aimed at getting a bit more velocity on the rotors. While it would have taken more time (and effort) - they could shave some pounds by shaping the rotors to get better lift out of them. They are losing considerable performance by allowing the rotors to fold like they are.

For example - small-diameter rotors are specially shaped to provide thrust closer to the rotational axis and lift farther out from it. The goal is, at the designed rotor speed, to have relatively equal forces applied across the whole of the rotor to reduce torsion and distortion of the airfoil.

But, there again - I've always been a perfectionist. In that respect, I can be a bit difficult to work with and a bit pessimistic when it comes to design phases - I tend to disagree with people who simply want to make something "that works" - especially when there are known ways to make it work better.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
[I find no interest in this at all sorry.



Then why post a reply?

This is interesting if perfected, I'll love flying around using pedal power or something although at first you'd be trundling around like an injured moth.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 08:45 AM
link   
I wonder if they are using metal or some kind of composite material.
If they are using metal, they could shave quite a bit of weight off by using some composites.

I also agree with a previous post. Using a tri-copter design instead of a quad-copter would drastically reduce weight and likely allow for an increase in rotational velocity for the rotors (due to the decrease in friction as a result of the air resistance of the fourth wing set, plus the friction from the gears for the fourth wing). The combination of the decrease in weight plus the increase in rotational speed would likely assist them in moving from a 1/2" 2 second flight to a higher and longer operation.

Also, did it appear to anyone else that the engineers were "lifting" up a little bit on it? I mean, they probably were just keeping it steady, but who's to say they didn't push up just a little bit to help out? Ha. Oh well, just unprovable speculation.

Anyways, an interesting video, I love seeing mechanical devices as such.

(Goes away to attempt to build a human powered gyrocopter)



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 08:50 AM
link   
Seems like an awful waste of time, money, material, film, etc etc..

I don't mean to rain on anyone's parade here but.. that was just terrible and seemingly pointless



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Erongaricuaro
 


That's a hellova workout motivation....pedal like the devil or crash! I admit, ever since I was a kid I always wanted a personal helicopter...not a flying car (I prefer vert takeoff and landing). Hopefully we all get to buy an anti-gravity vehicle some time before we die. I'll take one with a parachute please...



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 12:35 PM
link   
That's no helicopter; it's a ground-effect machine. There's a huge difference between floating a few inches above a flat floor and hovering at 3 meters above the ground. As the height increases, the power requirement also increases. I don't know if there is an exact formula, but I'd guess that it takes at least 4 times as much power to reach 3 meters. They'll have to breed a much more powerful human to win the Sikorski prize.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Phractal Phil
 


You need more energy to fly higher because the air becomes thinner, reducing trust. However the difference in air density between 3 inches and 3 meters is negligible.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaticusMaximus
reply to post by Phractal Phil
 


You need more energy to fly higher because the air becomes thinner, reducing trust. However the difference in air density between 3 inches and 3 meters is negligible.


It's called "wing in ground effect". With the ground pushing up and the wing pushing down, the air is compressed between them. So it doesn't take much power to get the necessary lift. Take the ground away, and you need a lot more power to get the same lift.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 10:19 PM
link   
That is a ridiculous contraption and is no victory or innovation at all. From the title of the thread I expected something at least interesting. The dorks cheer like they just won the superbowl when they accomplished nothing.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 11:05 PM
link   
I equate this to the wnba. No interest at all. What a waste of effort for nothimg.

Who cares about this?! It would be different if we didnt already have gas powered helis, bit this is just a waste of, well, everything..



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 04:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by isitjustme
That is a ridiculous contraption and is no victory or innovation at all. From the title of the thread I expected something at least interesting. The dorks cheer like they just won the superbowl when they accomplished nothing.




Do people not recognise a beginning when they see one?

That's what this is, just a beginning but it seems people are not interested in possibilities of what may come.

Stop being short sighted, people.



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 03:52 PM
link   
I just achieved human-powered flight. Altitude, about 2 feet. Duration, less than a second.

I call it "jumping". I really think it could catch on.

(about as significant as hovering inches for seconds)....



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Phractal Phil
 


Ya learn something new everyday!




top topics



 
4

log in

join