h a l f b a k e r yWhere life irritates science.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, best, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
I believe that I have figured out a way to build a human powered aircraft which could be flown safely in a variety of weather conditions by any physically fit person. The craft should not only fly but be able to hover, fly in reverse and perhaps after the first few prototypes, allow the pilot to leave
the aircraft tethered and hovering for short periods of time, (I’m thinking mainly for search and rescue purposes).
After studying other H.P.A. designs, I have concluded that pedaling is no where close to the maximum mechanical output a human can generate, so in this contraption the pilot will be held rigidly in a body harness doing crunches, (from fetal position to full extension) and controlling weight displacement with movements of his or her head via servo motors.
The aircrafts' premise is based upon the flight characteristics of a dragonfly, with one set of wings creating constant lift while the other set ascend with minimal air resistance, if enough power can be directed to the wings it will be possible to hover.
The framework will need to be made of a very light composite material or maybe bamboo. The wings should copy as closely as possible, the membrane separations of a dragonfly, (you can't beat mother nature when it comes to design specs), the difference being that each "membrane" will be filled with helium, housed in a Mylar pocket, each pocket valved and separate in case of a puncture. With four helium filled wings and about a twenty foot wingspan (subject to much research), the weight of the aircraft itself could attain neutral buoyancy, so that the pilot is only tiring to lift his own weight while hovering.
The craft would come equipped with a version of a dead-mans stick where the machine would cycle into a glide and bank mode with the camber of all four wings creating lift if the pilot loses consciousness, or allow the pilot to rest or charge energy storage devices which could add extra thrust to the wings when needed.
I don't relish the idea of being the first guy to jump off of a cliff with this thing so for testing purposes the machine would hang by it's tail from a cross bar, if the pilot can not generate enough lift to bring it up to level and hover then it's back to the drawing board.
There is a lot more to this idea, redundant safety features, several energy storage devices, the wing pivot mechanisms, landing and take off details, etc. but this is getting a bit long winded.
This idea is not yet baked to my knowledge but I have found two other whacos working on the same type of design.
I came across a sketch I did when I had the idea.
http://www3.telus.n...9193/dragonfly1.jpg
[2 fries shy of a happy meal, Oct 04 2004, last modified Oct 05 2004]
I also found a drawing of the remote control prtotype I built and tried to get a patent on.
http://www.keystone...orx.ca/scan0002.jpg
I was ( II ) this close. [2 fries shy of a happy meal, Oct 04 2004, last modified Dec 06 2004]
Richard Pearse
http://www.ctie.mon...rgrave/pearse1.html
In case you were wondering. [Nick@Nite, Oct 21 2004]
Spring Wings
http://patricktimon...en.com/catalog.html
Spring Wing design [JesusHChrist, Jan 09 2005]
Spiral Spring Wings
http://patricktimon...ven.com/photo3.html
See bad drawing entitled Sprial Spring Wings [JesusHChrist, Jan 09 2005]
The remote control dragonfly hits the market.
http://www.technolo...ch_remote_cont.html
Mine was WAY bigger. [2 fries shy of a happy meal, Mar 10 2007]
Human Powered Ornithopter from Japan
http://web.kyoto-in.../kazuho/index-e.htm
[spiraliii, Mar 10 2007]
[link]
|
| |
Wouldn't it get difficult trying to pilot the craft while doing crunches? |
|
| |
RayfordSteele, thanx for the input.
I don't think that trying to pilot while doing crunches would be difficult, as the the tail of the machine would extend, contract, and swing from side to side for hang glider-like weight displacement. These four directional controls the pilot would engage by moving his or her head with varying pressure against control rods. The pilots wrists and ankles would be held rigidly so that other, more subtle controlls such as wing tilt, gear changes, and auxiliary control of secondary power take off units could be initiated simply by: depressing buttons with the fingers, joy sticks for the pilots thumbs and something similar to a motor cycles gearshift for the feet. Totaly relaxing the pilots hands would engage the deadmans stick glide mode letting the pilot rest his head against the controll bar without affecting the craft. I can't think of anything which would let the pilot feel the air currents around him better than trying to "steer" with his or her head, there would not be a faster interface with the machine than directly from the inner ear ballance centre, to movements of the head. Watch someone play one of those flight simulation games sometime and note the movements of their head when things get tense. |
|
| |
I know very little about piloting, or about how flighted members of the animal kingdom function... but I do recall just a little physics from school. Thus it behoves me to request some clarification of the astonishing assertion which follows in repro. ... "With four wings and about a twenty foot wingspan the weight of the aircraft should be reduced to near zero"
hang on, sorry, I'm being a smart-arse. Have just noticed these wings are filled with helium. However as a pedant, not a physicist, it would be nice if the sentence in question read something more like: "With four wings and about a twenty foot wingspan the Helium should offset the weight of the aircraft to near zero."
back as a physicist then, with near-zero weight, how do you have any control on it? The Helium is always going to act in the vertical plane (no pun intended), or more correctly, towards lower pressure air. The 'weight' of an aircraft in flight, if I am not mistaken, is the force used off the vertical in banking manouevres, as it is the displacement of air over the wings due to force downwards from the plane's weight that makes them work. (I am having difficulty expressing myself here..)
Basically, you are trying to human-propel an aircraft; fine. I don't know enough to argue, croissant or fishbone. But I think I'm right that by trying to fiddle with the weight of the thing, you are creating more problems than you solve. |
|
| |
The following change might help: |
|
| |
"With four wings and about a twenty foot wingspan the weight of the aircraft should be reduced to near zero." => "With four wings and about a twenty foot wingspan the aircraft should become neutrally buoyant in air." |
|
| |
The figures seem reasonable so long as you're considering the aircraft without its pilot. |
|
| |
If this worked then it would have been Leonardo Da Vinci who first achieved powered flight, and not some New Zealander from Temuka, named Richard Pearse, whom everyone has conveniently forgotten. |
|
| |
Hearsay [UB], unfortunately. |
|
| |
Pearse was a secretive man, unfortunately. He also designed a precursor to Harrier jets - so one could take off and land in their own backyard. He ought to be the focus of a documentary. |
|
| |
/st3f/, Thanx, changes noted and made.
/lewisgirl/, I also have a hard time translating the thoughts in my head onto paper, or monitor for that matter, so please bear with me. Iv'e given quite a bit of thought to how a weightless craft might react once it is off the ground. Would the machine actualy be able to find "traction", (can't think of a better word), and be able to propell itself forward or would the pilot just end up flapping madly and not go anywhere fast? I could very well be wrong about this but, with one set of wings ascending in direct proportion to the pair descending, the main body of the machine should'nt oscilate much verticaly if it were'nt for only one pair, the downward stroke, creating lift. By tilting the angle of attack of the downward stroke some of that air pressure will be forced towards the rear of the wing, generating forward momentum (I think). As to the shape (camber) of an aircrafts' wing generating lift due to lower air pressure above the wing than below, this is true but only of a wing which is moving forward fast enough to create the pressure difference. This machines' four wings will have a teardrop shape to help with lift while gliding, but with a hovering craft the camber will do little besides help cup the air on the downstroke. (I think) |
|
| |
A little more than hearsay, Bris. |
|
| |
Okay. It's hearsay. There. A little more. He didn't document it so it's all a matter of faith at this point. |
|
| |
I wouldn't characterize "failed to document work" as "lack of publicity." However either is a valid reason for languishing in obscurity and is, ultimately, the fault of Pearse. He made his nest and landed in it. |
|
| |
Pearse's work is amazing but, to me, it's for reasons other than his alleged first flight. |
|
| |
I think his best work is not as a precursor to the Harrier because he was working on the notion of bird-like landings (wings that could dramatically change their chord, aspect and size much as a bird does when flaring) well after the advent of the Harrier. That he was doing it without absurd thrust ratios is what is amazing. |
|
| |
/Sophocrat/
I thought about a rowing action before I did the crunch, and your right it would produce a lot more torque but only during the row itself. For the length of time it takes to "put the oars back in the water" you would produce very little. I have tried to determine what movements would acheive a constant, sustainable force. |
|
| |
Oh . . . easy . . . it's the movements where you turn an ignition switch and push the starter. "Vroom" is (often) the sound it makes. |
|
| |
[ prediction/rant ]
These contraptions are going to be on the market within the next ten years.
I'd put money on it with five to one odds, but my wife would string me up by the short and curlies. |
|
| |
How about those wacky Frenchmen, the Montgolfier brothers? 1783, wasn't it? |
|
| |
*Everything* was invented by someone French... |
|
| |
We're talking about powered flight, Fornicator. |
|
| |
Maybe that should be fornicopter? But there's really no need to start getting rude. |
|
| |
The buoyancy of the craft isn't an issue as to it's ability to move through the air. However I would suggest that a larger wing span is needed, with a pilot of 70Kg (about 155lb) the loading on the wing would be very high and therefore you'd be having too move at quite some speed! |
|
| |
I like the filled with helium wings + bouyancy "would be the start of an idea"; And great flexability that is also very strong, and moulds to your own body in-parts - to give more control - wouldn't it?. |
|
| |
To use also the knowledge of grearing/ratios, make that perhaps a factor in a design theory. |
|
| |
Completley flexabile wings - using arms fitted correctly and moulding to your own parts of your limb. |
|
| |
I'll look at the idea of posting a renderd image of what my idea I can dream-up could look like as something i'd want to work towards at this time. |
|
| |
I'll comeback again to you soon I hope and try and follow up of past addnotes and anythind else added after this also. Phill. |
|
| |
2 Fries, I think 4 wings acting as closely as possible as
extensions of the four limbs, and designed around
mathematical cornucopias, so that the wings wrap around
the limbs until enough crawl-style stroke motion unfurels
them would allow a person's energy to be translated
efficiently into the air. If the wings are shaped right and
the material is really springy, this shouldn't be that hard
to do, especially with what we can do with modern
materials. I think the important thing is to think of what
motion is most natural to a human body that uses all the
muscels at their ability level and then design wings so
that they tranlate this motion efficiently into the air.
There wouldn't have to be any moving parts, the wings
should effectively "smooth" a person into the air with
their shape. The wing suit should be a siimple one piece
foam suit made out of springy foam and most importantly
it should be shaped really adaptively, so that every
change in the shape of the suit occurs gradually -- so at
the edges the suit would gradually fade off into
extreemly sharp but flexible edges.
(See link for bad drawings entitled "spring wings") |
|
| |
So, how did that patent work out for you, [2fries]? |
|
| |
Another thing to consider is that (I believe) insects control forward/backward, etc. motion with a rotational movement of their wings. I wonder if there is currently even a powered machinel that can do that? (Not saying at all that it can't be done - It'd be very interesting) |
|
| |
I must submit to the statement: //If this worked then it would have been Leonardo Da Vinci who first achieved powered flight,// |
|
| |
I saw a replica of Da Vinci's glider fly (on TV). Unless you mean the helicopter sketch, I believe whole heartedly that the replica & show was a faithful attempt at reproducing Da Vinci's concept. |
|
| |
Gliding doesn't officially count as flying, so sadly our good friend DaVinci wasn't the first in flight. The machine has to be able to make a controlled and powered flight for it to count, which is why the Wright brothers got it (Pearse doesn't count either, cause he never achieved real controlled flight). |
|
| |
Um, I might have overlooked someone else's anno and be repeating it now, it seems so obvious to me, but here goes: |
|
| |
How long could something like this stay airborne? I mean, the pilot would be have to be an athletic god to be able to keep crunching long enough to get anywhere. The reason cycling is a more popular idea is because you can do it for longer periods, although even that's going to be severely limited. The idea of a "man-powered" machine sets you up for failure, because the human body has been long regarded as mechanically inefficient. We require rest and we have to take time to dump any "fuel" that we don't digest. Gasoline-power is thousands of times more efficient because it uses every drop and can keep going for much longer periods. |
|
| |
Now, I believe that it would be possible to have a man-powered aircraft, but it would have to get off the ground by some other means, such as dropping from a carrier plane or rolling off the edge of a cliff. |
|
| |
[21], there already are several man-powered airplanes, most of which can take off normally like a regular plane. |
|
| |
[MikeOxbig] I hired a company called The Better Mousetrap Company to do the patent search; the only thing similar was an old patent for a blimp with four wings. The owner of this company contacted me a short time later telling me that he was in partnership with a manufacturing company in China and that he wanted to bring my idea to the table at an upcoming meeting and that there was a good possibility that they would want to run with it.
Weeks went by, then months. My phone calls and emails were not returned, and a short time later I read an article about m.e.m.s, one of which was a dragonfly shaped device with the patent belonging to the Naval Research Laboratories in the States. I pretty much gave up on the toy version when I saw that. |
|
| |
[21 Quest] Hovering would be difficult.
What I had in mind was storing energy while gliding or during forward flight when the shape of the wings would help with lift.
I had envisioned a counter rotating dual flywheel system with the flywheels themselves being made from hollow tubing and therefore too light to be of much use at first. When gliding your energy output would be used to increase the spin of the flywheels while filling them with compressed air, this would add weight to the machine when forward momentum would help to keep it aloft. For a rapid ascent or a long hover time stored energy from the flywheels spin would augment human power. When that spin energy is depleted the compressed air would be used, this would decrease the workload on the human while at the same time be decreasing the weight of the craft. |
|
| |
Saw this yesterday. [link] |
|
| |