Aerovelo's Human-Powered Helicopter Wins $250,000 Sikorsky Prize 58
First time accepted submitter oritonic1 writes "Since 1980, several teams have tried (and failed) to build a human-powered helicopter that could win the elusive $250,000 Sikorsky prize. But a Canadian start-up, Aerovelo, has finally taken the crown with Atlas, a human-powered craft that managed to stay at least 10 feet in the air, for 60 seconds, within a 30'x30' area."
Flintstones did it (Score:1)
Yabba-dabba-doo!
That thing is bigger than a (Score:1)
Pave Low that I shot down last night. Do I get a killstreak reward if I were to swat it with a flyswatter?
COOL! (Score:1)
what blows my mind is how slowly the wings move.
Re:Ground effect (Score:5, Informative)
With the speed those rotors are turning, I don't think there'd be much in the way of ground effects generated.
Just an old helicopter mechanic tho, not an aeronautical engineer So I might be completely wrong..
Re: (Score:1)
Ground effect depends heavily on rotor size, and those rotors are enormous.
Re: (Score:3)
Ground effect depends heavily on rotor size, and those rotors are enormous.
well.. isn't what it really depends on the speed of air put down.. I don't think ground effect played that much of a role. it flies by any definition of flying. fyi wright flyer 1 barely broke 10 feet in altitude.
Re: (Score:3)
Downward velocity component (affects the trapped/confined pressure differential), altitude of wing (affects confined pressure differential, and the formation of wingtip vortices (and their disuroption) which is part of GE), and wing dimensions/properties (wingspan, chord, airfoil shape, affects downward velocity and the confinement of the differential). and indirectly weight of the aircraft (not because it causes ground effect, but because it determines the effectiveness of it as the force opposing lift)
Re:Ground effect (Score:5, Informative)
With the speed those rotors are turning, I don't think there'd be much in the way of ground effects generated.
Just an old helicopter mechanic tho, not an aeronautical engineer So I might be completely wrong..
Typically about 1.5 rotor diameters are where it stops helping a traditional helicopeter. In this case, at 10 feet up with a 30 foot diameter, the slow rotor speed notwithstanding it will make a significant contribution. The air below the rotors can't freely move downward until the momentum of the wind dissipates; this energy creates lift.
Ben Berry from Gamera was actually a previous coworker before he went to work on their HPV project.
Source: Aero engineer, rules of thumb there are from asking around at Sikorsky years ago. Also, I don't like how they say this at all, but it at least says the ground effect is significant:
Three years ago, as Staruk and his UMD team began building their first iteration of Gamera, they quickly encountered the boundaries of current aerodynamic understanding. To rise off the ground, human-powered helicopters are helped by a phenomenon called ground effect, in which wings close to the surface of the earth experience a sharp reduction in drag. It's very helpful in getting off the ground but difficult to model. "Ground effect is a very complex phenomenon; there are all sorts of vortices," Chopra says. "You can only validate experimentally. There isn't much theory."
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/aviation/diy-flying/two-teams-one-dream-the-human-powered-helicopter-15354870-2 [popularmechanics.com]
Re:Ground effect (Score:4, Informative)
I forgot to mention the most important part -- the majority of the flight is done very low:
Power required is shown for rotor height of 60 cm (2 ft) above the ground. The 60-second duration flights will be flown as close to the ground as possible to increase ground effect advantages.
http://www.agrc.umd.edu/gamera/gamera2/gamera2-rotor-blades.html [umd.edu]
Re:Ground effect (Score:5, Insightful)
Who cares? It's human powered. It hovered. The thing looks like it's escaped from a Laudanum dream. Give the cyclist a stovepipe hat and a suit and reclaim steampunk from the dorks that think gluing a couple of gears on a USB stick is something to be proud of.
Now go back to plane spotting and leave us alone with this awesome contraption.
Re:Ground effect (Score:5, Funny)
a stovepipe hat and a suit
That should have been specified in the Sikorsky prize rules
Re: (Score:2)
...reclaim steampunk from the dorks that think gluing a couple of gears on a USB stick is something to be proud of.
Obligatory: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFCuE5rHbPA [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:2)
How is that not flying?
Thrust (Score:2)
Congrats guys.
This pretty much proves that a human athlete has enough power to provide enough thrust/downforce for lift. So my question is, would it be feasible to generate this same level of thrust in a smaller area using the same amount of power?
I'm guessing that by having such large rotors with low air speeds and low thrust per unit area, that efficiencies are kept high and this is why it works.
Would there be that huge an efficiency decrease if the same amount of thrust were generated on a smaller area?
Re: (Score:2)
Congrats guys.
This pretty much proves that a human athlete has enough power to provide enough thrust/downforce for lift. So my question is, would it be feasible to generate this same level of thrust in a smaller area using the same amount of power?
Gear reduction, perhaps?
Re: (Score:1)
Congrats guys. This pretty much proves that a human athlete has enough power to provide enough thrust/downforce for lift. So my question is, would it be feasible to generate this same level of thrust in a smaller area using the same amount of power?
Gear reduction, perhaps?
No, unless I'm mistaken, you can't use gears to change power, only to alter speed and torque. There are some (mostly negligable) losses in gears, but anything else would imply that gears can generate power, then you'd have a perpetual momentum device.
Re: (Score:2)
Congrats guys.
This pretty much proves that a human athlete has enough power to provide enough thrust/downforce for lift. So my question is, would it be feasible to generate this same level of thrust in a smaller area using the same amount of power?
Gear reduction, perhaps?
No, unless I'm mistaken, you can't use gears to change power, only to alter speed and torque. There are some (mostly negligable) losses in gears, but anything else would imply that gears can generate power, then you'd have a perpetual momentum device.
I was assuming GP was using the term "power" as a substitute for "work." Since his question is whether or not it would be possible to generate the same amount of thrust across a smaller airframe, while still doing the same amount of work, I presume that gear reduction could be a valid method of achieving that goal, because you would be able to increase the speed of the prop (and thus, generate more lift) without the power source (the cyclist) having to expend any more energy than before.
'Course, IANA Mechan
Re: (Score:1)
Again, no... I'm pretty sure work and energy are exactly the same thing... or rather work is the change in the energy of the system between two states... so the work you do is exactly equal to the energy you put in.
Power is just the change in energy over time, or the work over time... or the rate at which you are working or creating energy. P = dE/dt.
So, what I said before about generating power applies to generating energy or work, and gears cannot do that, or otherwise you would have a perpetual motion de
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the point was to meet the parameters of the contest. Why does this need to have any other application?
A proper helicopter can autorotate.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure they built it that huge just for funsies. Surely it didn't occur to them to use smaller rotors, you know, like every single helicopter ever built on Earth. They probably just didn't think of it.
Man, people who do things that have never been done before are so dumb...
Re:Thrust (Score:5, Informative)
So my question is, would it be feasible to generate this same level of thrust in a smaller area using the same amount of power?
No. The amount of thrust goes up linearly with the velocity of the airflow, but the amount of energy required to move that air goes up as the square of the velocity. So for the fixed amount of energy that a human can produce, you will get more thrust by it pushing down a large mass of air at a low velocity than a smaller amount of air at a high velocity.
Re: (Score:2)
Explained perfectly. It's kind of what I *thought* in a fuzzy kind of way. Good to see it explained :)
Ta.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not an aero engineer, but I think that ground effect is becoming significant when the area swept by the blades > the periphery of that area times height. That appears to be the case here. If the lift area becomes smaller, there's less ground effect for the same height.
Even ignoring ground effect, smaller rotor area is similar to smaller aspect ratio in wings, and leads to less lift for a given power input.
Congratulations - (Score:1)
My congratulations to Aerovelo for a job well done! Also consolation and respect to the UMd team, which made a convincing effort and came so so close.
That guy piloting it: (Score:3, Interesting)
That guy piloting it: same guy who flew the human powered flapping wing aircraft: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0E77j1imdhQ
might have been able to find a better rider (Score:3)
As someone who has started learning about power and cycling - this was a job for an cat 1 / "elite" racer, or at least someone significantly lighter than the guy in the video. I ride pretty regularly but not competitively, and I'm able to do about 300W for a minute. That's piddlesticks in the world of racing, for my weight.
A sprinter would be able to put out massive power (probably 5-7 times what I can do) but sprinters also tend to be heavy. Someone who isn't a sprinter would have less power, but could wei
Re: (Score:2)
How many sprints have you seen that took 64 seconds?
Re: (Score:2)
As someone who has started learning about power and cycling - this was a job for an cat 1 / "elite" racer, or at least someone significantly lighter than the guy in the video. I ride pretty regularly but not competitively, and I'm able to do about 300W for a minute.
I can't find it now but a girl was the first to make a record - linked from the end of the video; also from those links 3 different guys 1 crash
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emK-qIbuJ-k [youtube.com] so a lot of peddlers (?).
I'm wondering how much of a warmup he did - in order to do an effort like that, you really do need to be properly warmed up.
Not an answer but an indication (also linked from the end of the http://www.aerovelo.com/ [aerovelo.com] video)
From the description http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Q2Njtel-Es0#at=177 [youtube.com] [youtube.com]
"The one-minute power test is meant to simulate the flight of the Atlas helicopter, which s
Re: (Score:2)
That's more than 1 horsepower, on average, for sixty seconds.
(I'm sure his lady-friends enjoy his, uh, company.)
Great example of why prizes exist (Score:5, Insightful)
However, the engineering and material science that was used to make this possible could easily translate into lighter helicopters, electric vehicles, drones, you name it.
Just as flying solo across the Atlantic wasn't really something anybody did much after Lindbergh, neither will anybody do much human helicoptering (?) But the fact that it can be done will help humanity long term. Well done!
Improvements (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
a quick search yields the following:
avg human can produce 7200 Joules of energy in an hour (at 200 Watts per second)...surely this athlete is above that...but Lithium Ion batteries can store 460000 Joules per Kilogram.
even if he produces 40 times the average human (questionable) , a single Kg battery could store more energy...right? coupled with some solar trickle-chargers, i'd love to see an energy system applied to such a beautiful machine.
or are my thoughts way off track?
Re: (Score:2)
avg human can produce 7200 Joules of energy in an hour (at 200 Watts per second)
Watts are already "per second" - a Watt is one joule per second, so a human could generate 720,000 Joules in an hour - right?
Re: (Score:2)
at 200 Watts per second
A quick read yields the following:
You don't know much about physics or units of measurement.
Re: (Score:2)
Amazing (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
biggest quadcopter ever? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Inefficient (Score:1)
Why would they use a pedaling mechanism instead of a rowing mechanism? With a rowing mechanism he can deliver the same power with much less effort, or much higher power with the same effort. The operator can exert a large amount of force using his upper body, but he's just sitting there relaxing and letting his legs do all the work.
Re: (Score:1)
Why would they use a pedaling mechanism instead of a rowing mechanism?
It looks like it's hard enough already to stay nearly stationary.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because the rowing motion is much more efficient in the pull than the push. That would cause the energy input to vary greatly. over a longer period. A cycling mechanism is much higher frequency and, other that dead top and dead bottom, there relatively stable energy input.
Intent of the Prize Criteria? (Score:2)
Re:Intent of the Prize Criteria? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Congratulations (Score:1)
Congrats to Cam, Todd, et al. Terrific job! You guys have poured your hearts and souls into these projects, glad to see it paying off ^__^