it probably does hover but to get the speeds he's talking about at that altitude would at heast require some sort of windshield
Australian Unveils Prototype Hoverbike
- Thread starter Earnest Cavalli
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Say Mr. Scientist, how much is 170 mph in km/h?
A fucking shitload you say?
Goddamit, getting me all exited about non-existant things.
A fucking shitload you say?
Goddamit, getting me all exited about non-existant things.
I hope engine technology advances far enough so that the machine doesn't sound like a riding lawn mower running in front of a microphone hooked up to a concert stage soundsystem.Crusnik said:
In other words, THAT THING IS FRIGGIN' LOUD. No sneaking home at 2 in the morning on one of those.
Just read the website - it says everything you need to know and isn't being coy about it. It's not a finished product at all (the guy estimates it's 10% finished) they can achieve lift but have no idea quite how well it'll fly because they haven't got it to a suitable stage for untethered testing - the numbers for speed and altitude are just estimates based on physics (lift to weight ratio etc) he's not trying to claim they've achieved them.
Looks like it has a lot of potential (and also looks exceedingly cool) but there's a long way to go yet!
Looks like it has a lot of potential (and also looks exceedingly cool) but there's a long way to go yet!
I'm calling bull. Someone has already tried this before and the problem is that, yeah, it works well enough close to the ground, but once you gain a bit of altitude the blanket of air generated by the turbines turns into a jet-stream. When that happens good luck keeping that thing in control.
Notice how in all of the pics it's tethered to the ground?
Notice how in all of the pics it's tethered to the ground?
The first thought that popped into my head was "Meuller". That's the name of a guy who "is making hovercars". His site's very flashy, and has awesome concept art. Not mentioned are his twenty-year working period and lack of presentable prototypes, despite certain investor's hopes.
I'm not getting my hopes up on this. VTOL aircraft exist, but to my knowledge, the closest thing to a hoverbike currently in production is a Cessna.
I'm not getting my hopes up on this. VTOL aircraft exist, but to my knowledge, the closest thing to a hoverbike currently in production is a Cessna.
yes, props roughly that diameter could plausibly lift a human with an engine that small assuming it's reasonably high performance
and the reason i know that for a fact is there is an engine powered jet-pack almost exactly the same size that uses fans
IS that device functional?
i'd say there's no reason anything in that photo should be fake
i do not believe any of the claims on it's performance they make no sense
10,000 feet is way too high for a number of reasons: the engine would produce a fraction of it's usual bhp if it is not fitted with a huge air compressor ( and i mean big to process the amount of air an engine breathes )
i know a 50 hp engine without a compressor produces around 20 hp at 17000 feet,
( bit of trivia top-gear mentioned once )
so for fairness sake i'll assume only 1/4 is lost at 10,000
but i have no idea how it scales if it uses cube or square law or if there are pockets or layers of air but it's clearly a huge effect
they claim 270kg m.g.w ( presumably rider and fuel )
and only 295 maximum thrust
i make that 25 kilos overhead, so assuming 1/4 loss in power ( ignoring thin air displacement issues for the moment )
at 10,000 ft that's a positive weight of 48.75 kilos
now, that's extremely rough maths based on quickly rounded, numbers
but i allowed more than a fair margin for error
if anyone can find better ones feel free to correct me i am not a mathematician
( although i am an engineer )
but you can see it's very close to it's maximum thrust with a normal ish weight rider and fuel at any serious altitude it's falling like a sack of spuds due to oxygen deprivation and even if you fit a compressor to it ( and waste more power ) you're still blowing thin air down to push you up
so this is just setting sail for an epic fail
3,000 feet, perhaps
and 170 mph is obscenely fast, and that hover-bike has to be massively un-aerodynamic
( far less than a normal bike due to the rider and bike not being in-line )
and it's wasting huge amounts of it's power just holding itself up so where does that magic force come from?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamaha_YZF-R6
that is using almost the same amount of power and directing it all into forward momentum and it barely scrapes 170
so,
unless they mean when it flips upside down and forces itself into the ground i just don't see how this is remotely plausible
the claims on this thing are basically unbelievable imo
at this point i'd call bs on it even being stable if it needs cords to hold it straight for a picture
( seriously, why is it tethered? i could do that with a pc fan and a small 12v battery )
my prognosis:
'fly', sure
fly well? hell no
that's my opinion and rationale, anyway.
and the reason i know that for a fact is there is an engine powered jet-pack almost exactly the same size that uses fans
IS that device functional?
i'd say there's no reason anything in that photo should be fake
i do not believe any of the claims on it's performance they make no sense
10,000 feet is way too high for a number of reasons: the engine would produce a fraction of it's usual bhp if it is not fitted with a huge air compressor ( and i mean big to process the amount of air an engine breathes )
i know a 50 hp engine without a compressor produces around 20 hp at 17000 feet,
( bit of trivia top-gear mentioned once )
so for fairness sake i'll assume only 1/4 is lost at 10,000
but i have no idea how it scales if it uses cube or square law or if there are pockets or layers of air but it's clearly a huge effect
they claim 270kg m.g.w ( presumably rider and fuel )
and only 295 maximum thrust
i make that 25 kilos overhead, so assuming 1/4 loss in power ( ignoring thin air displacement issues for the moment )
at 10,000 ft that's a positive weight of 48.75 kilos
now, that's extremely rough maths based on quickly rounded, numbers
but i allowed more than a fair margin for error
if anyone can find better ones feel free to correct me i am not a mathematician
( although i am an engineer )
but you can see it's very close to it's maximum thrust with a normal ish weight rider and fuel at any serious altitude it's falling like a sack of spuds due to oxygen deprivation and even if you fit a compressor to it ( and waste more power ) you're still blowing thin air down to push you up
so this is just setting sail for an epic fail
3,000 feet, perhaps
and 170 mph is obscenely fast, and that hover-bike has to be massively un-aerodynamic
( far less than a normal bike due to the rider and bike not being in-line )
and it's wasting huge amounts of it's power just holding itself up so where does that magic force come from?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamaha_YZF-R6
that is using almost the same amount of power and directing it all into forward momentum and it barely scrapes 170
so,
unless they mean when it flips upside down and forces itself into the ground i just don't see how this is remotely plausible
the claims on this thing are basically unbelievable imo
at this point i'd call bs on it even being stable if it needs cords to hold it straight for a picture
( seriously, why is it tethered? i could do that with a pc fan and a small 12v battery )
my prognosis:
'fly', sure
fly well? hell no
that's my opinion and rationale, anyway.
That's what I'm wondering.evilthecat said:
I mean I guess the fans could rotate about an axis with two joints, but then any forward force is going to make it both unstable and have less upward force. Once the craft is moving, aerodynamics come into play and I guess maybe it could be designed to generate lift from air passing underneath - but with a rider on top and those fans where they are - I doubt it.
So perhaps the entire craft tilts in the same way a helicopter does. That would be asking for trouble with those two exposed fans.
I'm sceptical. Sure he might be able to get it to lift for a few minutes before running out of power or the engine dying, but that's hardly a hovercraft and more of a hover-tray.
I'm sure it exists and can be made to work, the question is practicallity.
1) Seems noisy
2) Range
3) Actual transport ability. Can it get up to 10,000 feet with an overweight IT guy on it? Can it get the shopping home?
4) Fuel - With any aircraft power to weight is vital. So, is this running off something exotic or a standard petrol engine?
As proof that such things are at least possible I offer this awesome gadget:
http://www.firebox.com/product/3579/JetLev-Flyer
1) Seems noisy
2) Range
3) Actual transport ability. Can it get up to 10,000 feet with an overweight IT guy on it? Can it get the shopping home?
4) Fuel - With any aircraft power to weight is vital. So, is this running off something exotic or a standard petrol engine?
As proof that such things are at least possible I offer this awesome gadget:
http://www.firebox.com/product/3579/JetLev-Flyer
Amazingly enough, he's some wind meter action going on there, I would like to see the data he got off of that.KeyMaster45 said:
Some awesome Australian inventions:
http://www.whitehat.com.au/australia/Inventions/InventionsA.html
If you can't be bothered reading it some inventions include:
- Refrigeration
- WiFi
- Pacemakers
- Google Maps
- Freestyle swimming
- Dual Flush toilets
EVERYONE! Stop being so pessimistic! Jeez! There have been fuckloads of dipshits like you in the world that have doubted inventions would work before their release! Have a bit of faith. I for one (like normal people should be) am excited for what the future holds. If this turns out to be a flop... so be it. If it turns out to be awesome... THEN AWESOME! But my point is for all you idiots screaming "FAKE!" or "PICS OR IT DIDN'T HAPPEN ROFL LMAO!" you guys are missing the whole point of intellectual and scientific discovery. Mistakes will be made. Our limits will be tested. But by god let the guy have his passion because it could turn out to be marvelous.
http://www.whitehat.com.au/australia/Inventions/InventionsA.html
If you can't be bothered reading it some inventions include:
- Refrigeration
- WiFi
- Pacemakers
- Google Maps
- Freestyle swimming
- Dual Flush toilets
EVERYONE! Stop being so pessimistic! Jeez! There have been fuckloads of dipshits like you in the world that have doubted inventions would work before their release! Have a bit of faith. I for one (like normal people should be) am excited for what the future holds. If this turns out to be a flop... so be it. If it turns out to be awesome... THEN AWESOME! But my point is for all you idiots screaming "FAKE!" or "PICS OR IT DIDN'T HAPPEN ROFL LMAO!" you guys are missing the whole point of intellectual and scientific discovery. Mistakes will be made. Our limits will be tested. But by god let the guy have his passion because it could turn out to be marvelous.
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:
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.