Human-Powered Helicopter Team Sets New Records For Altitude and Flight Duration 59
First time accepted submitter daltec writes "The $250,000 American Helicopter Society Igor I. Sikorsky Human Powered Helicopter Competition prize, unclaimed since 1980, is now within Gamera II's reach. On Thursday, the University of Maryland's Clark School of Engineering team unofficially satisfied two of the three American Helicopter Society Sikorsky Prize requirements. The giant craft flew for 65 seconds, stayed within a 10 square meter area and hovered at two feet of altitude. New unofficial U.S. and world flight duration records were also set. The team expects to make their next attempt Saturday." That's today!
That's not today! (Score:1)
Not in Australia. It's yesterday.
Re:That's not today! (Score:5, Funny)
Not in Australia. It's yesterday.
well. did they do it?
Re: (Score:1)
Re:That's not today! (Score:5, Informative)
To be a real helicopter, it needs to be able to fly out of ground effect.
This would be at least a height equal to the diameter of the propellor, or 40 meters height about with the current prop.
Under this height, it gains significant advantage from being next to the ground - it's behaving like a hovercraft, not a helicopter.
See the nice graph at http://www.copters.com/aero/ground_effect.html [copters.com] - two thirds of the way down.
At 1/4 (10m altitude for the above device) the thrust is 20% better than at altitude.
You could in principle make a free-flight helicopter by bolting two http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_Daedalus [wikipedia.org] 's to a light spar, so it's in principle possible.
Re: (Score:2)
They never got above maybe 18 inches off the ground, the Sikorsky Prize [wikipedia.org] requires reaching a height of 3 meters.
Re: (Score:3)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmea3odVgDE#
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Human powered (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
New meaning for p.p.m.: People Per Mile
Re: (Score:1)
Didn't the Americans already coin this phrase, and do their math based upon it, before they went into Iraq for oil?
10 meter square != 10 sq m (Score:2, Informative)
The requirement they accomplished is a 10 meter square, not 10 square meters.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes ... and 10 meter square is nothing but 2 x 5
So 10 squared meters ( 10 x 10 ) sound like a more feasible number.
You got this exactly wrong.
Your "t0 squared meters" is either (10 squared) meters = 100 m, or 10 (squared meters) = 10 m^2.
100 square meters is correct, just like your parent post said. It can only[*] be read as 100 (square meters).
[*] Well, technically, one might imagine bending a meter long rod into a "square meter" that's 25 cm on each side and thus 1/16 m^2 in area, but that's not what square meter means.
But don't take it from me, I'm just an engineer who grew up with the metric system. Go look it up
Re: (Score:2)
10 meters square is 100 m^2 (a 10 meter by 10 meter square).
Though the usage is regional.
But don't take it from me, I'm just an engineer who grew up with the metric system. Go look it up.
Then you aren't from the US or the UK, so your math many not be the issue, but your "English". The metric system is irrelevant to the question. 10 feet square has the same definition. Though you used "meter" so you either are from the US, or learned English US style, so I'm confused as to what your qualifications are.
Re: (Score:2)
I never said that 10-meter square was wrong. Only that 10 square meter (TFS) and 10 squared meter (GPP) were wrong.
A 10-meter square is correct, and that's a 100 square meter square.
Re: (Score:2)
I notice you didn't comment on my "proof" you are lying in that there are no places with native English speaking where an engineer could grow up with the metric system (unless you count growing up in the US with "m
Re: (Score:2)
I notice you didn't comment on my "proof" you are lying in that there are no places with native English speaking where an engineer could grow up with the metric system (unless you count growing up in the US with "ml" listed on you on you gallon of milk or 12 oz. cans of soda to be growing up with the metric system) and use the word "meter".
Careful with your accusations of lying. It is fully possible to grow up with the metric system, yet live in a country where one says "meter". I've lived in the US for 13 years now, and while American English has rubbed off, I do not forget the metric system.
I have become (I almost wrote gotten) used to Fahrenheit, but the pints here are too small.
But even when not considering moving, you are wrong. Did you know that the US adopted the metric system twice? First in the 1860s, and then in the 1960s. Whil
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"The requirement they accomplished is a 10 meter square, not 10 square meters."
I was going to say... I've seen pictures of it and the helicopter itself is bigger than 10 square meters, so I did not see how it could fulfill this requirement.
A 10 meter square makes much more sense.
Re: (Score:2)
I was going to say... I've seen pictures of it and the helicopter itself is bigger than 10 square meters, so I did not see how it could fulfill this requirement.
Well, the helicopter itself is 114 feet across, so it doesn't even fit in a 10 metre square area either. Fortunately, the rules say that a reference point on the frame is used to determine whether the helicopter stayed in the square area, so the size of the helicopter doesn't really matter.
Repairs complete, ready to fly again! (Score:5, Informative)
Human Powered (Score:5, Funny)
They need to hire Lance Armstrong. I doubt they can ban him from peddling on this.
Re: (Score:1)
It would help (Score:2)
i should stop paying attention to politics (Score:2)
all i could think of was politicians flying for years, within a narrow ideological area, and hovering at the highest echelons of power, propelled aloft by nothing but hot air
Nice, but.. (Score:1)
Not a fly just a hover (Score:2)
Hovering is much easier than flying, I don't think a human-powered helicopter can ever fly.
Re: (Score:2)
For a helicopter - hovering is almost as hard as flying.
If you increase the rotor thrust by 10%, and tilt it, you end up going sideways at a considerable speed.
Re: (Score:3)
But this contraption only hovers a meter above ground, making tremendous use of the ground effect.
Re: (Score:1)
Like many things, its complicated, most especially with a helicopter. When a helicopter is hovering close to the ground you have ground effect lift. Basically the air pushed down by the main rotor reflects off the ground and comes back up, you need less power to just sit there than if you were higher up and just sitting there. When a helicopter is moving horizontally it has translational lift. The rotors are not only pushing air down but are also acting like a normal wing and getting lift from the air comin
Let's see OGE to impress me (Score:2)
First of all, hovering is flying.
I don't know about "easier", whatever that means, but actually hovering in a helicopter OGE (out of ground effect) takes considerably more power than cruising in forward flight.
Since this was an extreme case of IN ground effect, color me academically impressed but realistically the feat is completely void of any application.
Re: (Score:2)
realistically the feat is completely void of any application.
Void of a "human pedal-powered helicopter" application is not the same as void of "any" application. Even if no practical human flight comes from it, challenges that foster experiments like these can drive new materials application and development. Perhaps someone figured out how to make a lighter weight carbon fiber tube as a result, or a new adhesive, or even a more efficient motor-generator technology, all in an attempt to gain just that little bit more lift. Or maybe someone figured out a new light w
Still skeptical. (Score:2)
Keeping your craft within a constrained area? Not hard.
Heck, getting a pedal powered craft off the ground isn't that hard. (No really, you can make a pedal powered hovercraft in a weekend. It will only lift you a centimeter, but again, getting off the ground is not that hard.)
But getting 9 feet in the air? That is seriously hard, and no craft I've seen has gotten close. Every single one has used ground effect for their lift, which is why they're all stuck around 18-24" . That's a far cry for supporting your
Re: (Score:3)
But getting 9 feet in the air? That is seriously hard, and no craft I've seen has gotten close.
If you can't be bothered to RTFA then at least WTFV, it shows their craft getting up 8 feet in the air.
An impressive display (Score:1)
10 m^2 or a square 10m per side... (Score:1)
I don't think they qualify either way, seeing how the craft is 34 meters from wingtip to wingtip.
Not that I could've built this or anything, just saying it doesn't fit in the box it has to stay inside.
Re: (Score:2)
34 m in diameter... so the area in m^2 would be... ... 289*3.14.. - or about 900 m^2.
(34/2)^2*pi
Yes, a BIT more than 100 m^2, that.
But perhaps they only count the fuselage?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
They use the center of the aircraft -- the pilot's position -- as the origin or reference.
Not necessarily the centre:
"4.4.3 A reference point on the non-rotating part of the machine will be established as a means whereby the observers can judge that the machine stayed within the confines of the 10-meter square."
My guess is that a corner would be easier to judge by.
Re: (Score:3)
Rules here [vtol.org]
It appears that the 10-meter square is a leeway area, meaning that the craft must not move more than 5 m from the starting point in the cardinal directions, or more than 7.07 m in the 45 degree diagonal directions.
Why not make it simpler with a circular leeway area? No idea.
The funniest thing I saw was this rule:
"4.1.2 The machine shall be a rotary wing configuration capable of vertical takeoff and landing in still air, and at least one member of the crew shall be non-rotating. "
The site with the video (Score:4, Informative)
The race is on! (Score:2)
They are not the only ones [thestar.com].
video of crash (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Such slow blades! (Score:2)
B) I love the idea that if you stop pedaling you die! 'course they're pussing out staying just above the ground..."test" indeed.
Another crash! (Score:1)
Improvement on Nihon University YURI I (Score:1)
Helicopter quirks (Score:2)
The design looks familiar (Score:2)
Classic [thingsmagazine.net], even.
Gamera is friend to all children (Score:2)