Australian Unveils Prototype Hoverbike
- Thread starter Earnest Cavalli
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Even if the 10.000 feet of altitude an be reached, i still see a wee bit of a problem, the center of gravity of this machine seems a bit high to me, looks unstable as can be.
Flipping over and ending up falling even faster than a brick from that height will certainly leave a dent.
Flipping over and ending up falling even faster than a brick from that height will certainly leave a dent.
Out of both of these images, I cant wait for both of them, I would prefer the car, also all Australia needs is now better internet, to realese these hover cars and bikes, a better classification govt...thats it, mabey.notimeforlulz said:It doesn't look like a ground effect vehicle. Ground effect vehicles have their fans contained inside the vehicle so the vehicle look slick, or they have a whole bunch of small exposed fans so that once again the vehicle can look slick. I basically look at alot of hovercraft and go '20ft ceiling' but with this one, with it's large exposed props, I'm not thinking that. Because he's got the rotors exposed, if it gets up to speed (like, going forward and staying aloft thanks to ground effect) the amount of lift it's generating increases the faster it goes. So it could be stuck with the ground effect up to say, 30/35mph. Gotta get me some little fans to test the stability of this platform for myself. I don't think it'll be very stable going sideways, but forwards and back, I think it might be pretty stable, if it's stable at all.rickynumber24 said:
And let me just get back to the ground effect stuff again. Yes engineers trying to make flying cars for the last 40 years haven't succeeded in getting lift without it's help. I personally blame that on the total morons who have zero sense of aeronautical engineering having gotten all the fame and funding, a.k.a. MOLLER. Just looking at Moller's vehicles again... Yup, those things aren't going anywhere.
It's basically these:
VERSUS this:
[http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/717/hoverbikeimgp3825large.jpg/]
Uploaded with ImageShack.us [http://imageshack.us]
As you can see from the relative size of the lift generators to the vehicles alone. This guy has something that could work, where as Moller is clearly a scam artist more than he is an engineer.
EDIT: Needs more than twin bladed props though, I doubt there's enough lift there, even when exploiting the additional lift gained from speed. That being said, it's 1 engineering flaw versus god knows how many in Moller's fail boat.
EDIT2: The hoverbike is using a bicycle engine I think, that's another flaw, switch to some turbo props, as in 2 turbo props.
Making things go up isn't that big a challenge. Just stick a giant fan under it and it'll go up. But to stabilise the thing, to make it go forward and steer and land without crashing, that's the big challenge. Sceptical sceptic is sceptical.
Earnest Cavalli said:
Thank goodness. If all you needed was a motorcycle license or something, that would be terrible. Where I live, there are a TON of weekend warrior motorcyclists, and most of them can barely ride. They really easy to spot too. They all ride Harley-Davidson's, are decked out in leather chaps and vests, and usually don't wear helmets. Dead giveaways are when they hold in the clutch with their left hand at a stop light, and never shift the bike down into neutral. They just keep holding in the clutch, and roach their transmissions. Also, if you ever see somebody riding a bike with full leather gear, and wearing loafers...
A lot of these morons just get their permits renewed every year and never even bother to get a license. These people are bad enough on the ground, we don't need them in the air too. We already have flying assholes, they're called 'Seagulls'.
Well I see that I see a lot of people that seem to believe this design is unstable and think it would flip over. The truth is that assuming that this flies at all (the 10,000 feet 170 mph part no way in hell) it actually should be very stable assuming he designed it right. The ducted fans do a couple of things for the craft. The ducts can provide up to 60% of the lift which for craft like this is usually much needed. They also create a cool phenomenon when tilted the air flowing over the lower edge speed ups creating more lift, forcing the craft back up right. (It might be air flowing over the higher edge slows down creating less lift for that side but the end results are the same. It?s been a couple of years since I researched these types of craft.) Military testing during the 50's and early 60's proved that these designs are pretty much impossible to flip over.
http://youtu.be/GgNlumaVPDw
Don't know how to embed a video
http://youtu.be/GgNlumaVPDw
Don't know how to embed a video
It's theoretically possible for that arrangement to be stable, or so it appears. The fans are (as best I can tell without actual measurements) far enough apart and large enough in diameter to be mostly stable, barring sudden weight shifts and the like. I certainly wouldn't want to ride it on a windy day, but if it was clear, I could see the thing working.Worgen said:
I'm leaning towards fake myself, but that's more because his claims about flying at 10,000 ft seem a bit ludicrous. A single strong gust (and there's lots of those at that altitude) would almost certainly be enough to flip the stupid thing over and then you're fucked.
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or you simply misunderstood what you quoted, but the original post said you do not need a pilot's license to operate the thing. Matter of fact, since it's an ultralight, you don't need any license to be able to operate it.EvolutionKills said:
Jewrean said:
Erm... Google earth has penises in new zealand LOL just kidding
i fully agree with ur statement, the inventors who got us so far advanced today are not at all related to the unimaginative idiots screaming 'fake!' infact i think they might be related to the people burning women because they thought they were witches... you know, the pitchfork clan. this guy actually got outside and tried something instead of sitting behind a pc trying to point out what is fake or not
anyway, with my basic physics knowledge it looks bound to fail due to lack of counter thrust or balance, but atleast he can then take it further from there. who knows, they got those mallcop transporter thingies to balance
The funny thing is, the physics says that 140 mph isn't too hard to believe. The bike would effectively be skating along on a cushion of air - far, far less friction than a normal bike would face along the road (and rolling friction - ie, a tyre - is really low!) so 140 mph isn't totally unbelievable.Veloxe said:
3 km into the air? Hahahano.
I'm not an aersoapce engineer (yet), but from what I have learned so far, this partuclar machine has a host of little life-threatening issues that would make it something to stay away from, that is, if it is in fact real.
The biggest problem I see is stability and control.
- Poor rolling characteristics due to longitudinal weight distribution.
- In the event of a single engine failure or loss of power, an unrecoverable pitching roll would result.
- The turning thrusters look as though they would provide for very slow turns. That's all well and good until a tight turn is needed, but this machine looks to be incapable of such things as a roll of 90 degrees or greater would likely result in a crash.
- Stall characteristics???? WHAT stall characteristics! There are ZERO lifting surfaces on this thing. Flying by propulsive force alone is a bad idea! I cannot stress this enough!
Ultralight or not, the FAA would never allow these in the skies.
I am also very skeptical of their claim that it can reach 10,000 feet.
This machine looks akin to balancing on a surfboard at 160mph and 120 feet off the ground. That is NOT my idea of safe!
There are reasons why airplanes evolved the way they did - with wings and tails. Sure, you can break from convention (see the B-2, X-36, and the V-22), but doing so creates new problems; some of which require complex solutions.
In fact, we can look to the V-22 as an example of how this machine is a bad idea. Let's take a look at the V-22.
This particular aircraft has a tilt-rotor design that allows it to transition between a helicopter and conventional airplane configuration. For the sake of this discussion, we will focus on it's engines in the helicopter configuration with respect to stability and control.
What do you imagine would happen if an engine on this aircraft were to fail or lose power while it is in it's, "Helicopter," mode? It would roll and crash.
Here is an example of what happened to the V-22 during early testing.
See any similarities???
The bike would likely suffer from the same stability issues due to its configuration.
The problems with the V-22 were (mostly) ironed out after a decade or so of rethinking the design and billions of dollars in R&D. Now, the V-22 compensates for engine failure or loss of power with a complex transmission system. In the event of an engine failure, a single engine is used to drive both rotors with a significant loss of performance.
DISCLAIMER: I do not know enough about the hoverbike to draw any specific conclusions. I have also not yet completed my AE degree. However, I have enough knowledge about what should fly and shouldn't (or shouldn't be allowed to) in order to draw my own conclusions and/or draw parallels to existing aircraft. There also may have been some things that I have overlooked. I put this together fairly quickly.
The biggest problem I see is stability and control.
- Poor rolling characteristics due to longitudinal weight distribution.
- In the event of a single engine failure or loss of power, an unrecoverable pitching roll would result.
- The turning thrusters look as though they would provide for very slow turns. That's all well and good until a tight turn is needed, but this machine looks to be incapable of such things as a roll of 90 degrees or greater would likely result in a crash.
- Stall characteristics???? WHAT stall characteristics! There are ZERO lifting surfaces on this thing. Flying by propulsive force alone is a bad idea! I cannot stress this enough!
Ultralight or not, the FAA would never allow these in the skies.
I am also very skeptical of their claim that it can reach 10,000 feet.
This machine looks akin to balancing on a surfboard at 160mph and 120 feet off the ground. That is NOT my idea of safe!
There are reasons why airplanes evolved the way they did - with wings and tails. Sure, you can break from convention (see the B-2, X-36, and the V-22), but doing so creates new problems; some of which require complex solutions.
In fact, we can look to the V-22 as an example of how this machine is a bad idea. Let's take a look at the V-22.
This particular aircraft has a tilt-rotor design that allows it to transition between a helicopter and conventional airplane configuration. For the sake of this discussion, we will focus on it's engines in the helicopter configuration with respect to stability and control.
What do you imagine would happen if an engine on this aircraft were to fail or lose power while it is in it's, "Helicopter," mode? It would roll and crash.
Here is an example of what happened to the V-22 during early testing.
See any similarities???
The bike would likely suffer from the same stability issues due to its configuration.
The problems with the V-22 were (mostly) ironed out after a decade or so of rethinking the design and billions of dollars in R&D. Now, the V-22 compensates for engine failure or loss of power with a complex transmission system. In the event of an engine failure, a single engine is used to drive both rotors with a significant loss of performance.
DISCLAIMER: I do not know enough about the hoverbike to draw any specific conclusions. I have also not yet completed my AE degree. However, I have enough knowledge about what should fly and shouldn't (or shouldn't be allowed to) in order to draw my own conclusions and/or draw parallels to existing aircraft. There also may have been some things that I have overlooked. I put this together fairly quickly.
briunj04 said:
Actually hologram technology has existed for a while now, it just sucks hardcore because its difficult to manage, and extremely expensive to produce on a mass scale.
And I thought that shoes without laces were automatic lacing shoes =D
OT: The way its designed, he'd have to lean forward to move forward, and assuming that's the case, its likely he'd easily be able to lean too far forward and it would flip on him due to the way the fans work. Overall its a system based solely on balance assuming its a real hover bike. It won't work anything like the old star wars ones.
I don't doubt it can reach 140 MPH if the fans move fast enough, but that will be going 140 MPH up, not forwards. If I'm correct. That or because of altitude and applying "airplane/helicoptor mechanics" it won't really be moving that fast, but will be going that far.
Also, sorry, but this is not real hover technology, its propeller based technology used in a new way. Think of it like a helicoptor for one person, but more dangerous.
The closest thing we have to a real hover technology is magnet-based tech that causes ojects to rise into the air due to opposite polarities.
... I want my reverse black hole repulsorlift tech. >.>