Australian Unveils Prototype Hoverbike
- Thread starter Earnest Cavalli
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Holy fuck 30L/hr fuel consumption with a 60L tank.... essentially 7.5 gallons per hour. No thanks I like my wallet where it is.
If I remember one bike is $40,000 +/- $5000
Assume gas is at $4.00/gallon
about 1,300 hours and you're another 40,000 in the hole
I'll stay with my 2 gallon/60 mile/hour focus
If I remember one bike is $40,000 +/- $5000
Assume gas is at $4.00/gallon
about 1,300 hours and you're another 40,000 in the hole
I'll stay with my 2 gallon/60 mile/hour focus
I'm skeptical about lateral stability and rolling. Let's see some free flight without tie downs.
Oh god I knew someone was going to go there. The only weakness would be Cuddly Care Bears with RopesScarim Coral said:
<youtube=qrrrmhUz2o4&feature=related>
I feel that I have to say this. I already detailed the problems with this over at Gizmodo, but I feel the need to reiterate here.
As it exists now, this vehicle has zero roll stability. That accounts for a full third of its stability (the other two being yaw and pitch). Because this uses wooden propellers, there are a number of design flaws:
1. No roll control. Helicopters are capable of varying the angle of attack of their rotors, allowing them to have different thrust at different points under the rotors, i.e left and right can develop different thrust in response to the orientation of the helicopter. This hoverbike cannot do that because it has fixed pitch propellers.
2. Wooden props are horribly inefficient when compared to modern composite. Further, because those props are already elliptically shaped,the ducts do absolutely nothing to lessen the drag on the blades (which is the whole point of ducted fans).
3. Ineffective and potentially dangerous yaw and pitch control. The two fans are counter-rotating in order to cancel out the rotational momentum. This is similar to a helicopter in that without a tail rotor, a helicopter would also spin uncontrollably due to the rotational momentum of it's main rotor. However, a helicopter uses this to its advantage. By varying the thrust levels from the tail rotor, the vehicle can rotate in place by using that rotational momentum, or by directly overcoming it to yaw in the opposite direction. This hoverbike could theoretically do that by varying the rotational velocity of the two fans, but this would also cause a distinct difference in thrust, which would adversely affect the pitch. Likewise, attempting to vary the pitch would result in unintentional yaw moments.
These can all be easily overcome. Switch to four-bladed composite fan, which are specifically design for applications like this, and utilize swatchplates on each so that rotational speed and thrust can be varied independently.
This particular craft may well be a hoax, but with advances in engine technology, there is no reason that something in the same mold can't be produced in the future.
As it exists now, this vehicle has zero roll stability. That accounts for a full third of its stability (the other two being yaw and pitch). Because this uses wooden propellers, there are a number of design flaws:
1. No roll control. Helicopters are capable of varying the angle of attack of their rotors, allowing them to have different thrust at different points under the rotors, i.e left and right can develop different thrust in response to the orientation of the helicopter. This hoverbike cannot do that because it has fixed pitch propellers.
2. Wooden props are horribly inefficient when compared to modern composite. Further, because those props are already elliptically shaped,the ducts do absolutely nothing to lessen the drag on the blades (which is the whole point of ducted fans).
3. Ineffective and potentially dangerous yaw and pitch control. The two fans are counter-rotating in order to cancel out the rotational momentum. This is similar to a helicopter in that without a tail rotor, a helicopter would also spin uncontrollably due to the rotational momentum of it's main rotor. However, a helicopter uses this to its advantage. By varying the thrust levels from the tail rotor, the vehicle can rotate in place by using that rotational momentum, or by directly overcoming it to yaw in the opposite direction. This hoverbike could theoretically do that by varying the rotational velocity of the two fans, but this would also cause a distinct difference in thrust, which would adversely affect the pitch. Likewise, attempting to vary the pitch would result in unintentional yaw moments.
These can all be easily overcome. Switch to four-bladed composite fan, which are specifically design for applications like this, and utilize swatchplates on each so that rotational speed and thrust can be varied independently.
This particular craft may well be a hoax, but with advances in engine technology, there is no reason that something in the same mold can't be produced in the future.
Gentlemen, have you forgotten already about the fact that there exist working jetpacks?
http://martinjetpack.com/
Powered by nothing more than "a couple of fans" as you so derisively put it concerning the hoverbike?
The technology exists and already has one-man flight applications. why not another?
http://martinjetpack.com/
Powered by nothing more than "a couple of fans" as you so derisively put it concerning the hoverbike?
The technology exists and already has one-man flight applications. why not another?
I think it's possible. We've had the ability to use Fan/Blade propeller single person flight for awhile. The Williams X-Jet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williams_X-Jet) is 30 years old. It worked, it flew, it hit speeds up to 80 MPH. It just never went into production because no one ever thought of using it outside of military operations, where a helicopter is 100x more effective.
That being said this could just be a hoax, but who knows.
That being said this could just be a hoax, but who knows.
Actually they couldn't get it to lift them off the ground reliably. And that was using a more powerful and lighter engine than was called for in the specs. Also considering this:Jegsimmons said:
I'm more inclined to believe this guy is projecting out into the future for his 10k ft and 170 MPH claim. Because of that, I think I'll call shenanigans now.iyaerP said:
All he needs for commercial application is like 200 FT and 120 MPH. Why bother claiming something that is really hard to believe without video footage?
Something tells me that, even if this is actually being developed, it would be about as stable as an Avrocar [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avrocar].
just gonna poke one hole in this... how does it move forward? is there any actual thrust forward, if so, idk, that doesn't seem like it'd be that great....
Okay, I did not just read that. A flying vehicle is not the same as a ground vehicle since it is designed to go vertically in the air, why the hell wouldn't it need its own license? Also consider that it can apparently go almost twice as fast as a normal car. I can already picture it, "Teenager crashes hover bike into diner. Kills twenty people and three babies"
I'll agree with the skeptical. I believe the thing has enough thrust to hold up a rider. I don't believe that it can stay upright without those tie-down straps. I see no way to prevent a barrel roll into concussionville. I see in one photo they are getting by on four tie-downs with only one tight. This is outside with high light--I'm guessing it is an "in-between" shot during a takeoff. (Also, the rider's organic landing gear are partially deployed.)
If it IS real...one hour of flight time on a 30L tank is a pretty expensive ride. Still, it IS a friggin' hoverbike!
If it IS real...one hour of flight time on a 30L tank is a pretty expensive ride. Still, it IS a friggin' hoverbike!
