Ynot’s Human Powered Helicopter Attempt

ynot · 1st January 2013, 05:17 PM

　
　
　
I’m a 62 year old backyard inventor that has the crazy notion that I might be able to build a human powered helicopter (HPH) that might perform better than the past and current attempts of people with much more financial, technical and educational resources.

There’s an incentive simply in the challenge and in being “the first” but there’s also an open Sikorsky Human Powered Helicopter Competition with a success prize of US$250,000 - http://www.vtol.org/awards-and-conte...pter/hph-rules

The main three thing you have to achieve to win are . . .

(1) Reach a height of 3 metres (momentarily).
(2) Hover for 60 seconds.
(3) Stay within a 10 metre square.

The most successful attempts I have found so far are . . .

Yuri (1994) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caHCbuh_Yyc&NR=1&feature=endscreen
Gamera (current) - http://www.agrc.umd.edu/gamera/index.html
Atlas (current) - http://www.aerovelo.com/
Upturn (current) - http://www.ntsworks.com/New_Helicopter.html

Assuming I use a suitably strong, fit and light person(s) to power and pilot my HPH I begin with a “motor” that has a limited power to weight ratio. It’s important therefore that I use the most effective and efficient method of transmitting human power into mechanical power before considering other aspects of design such as rotors/wings etc. Conventional wisdom seems to conclude that a pedalled crank (as used in a bicycle) is the best method and it’s used by all other attempts I’ve seen so far. I don’t agree and think there is a better method for this particular challenge and this (perhaps deluded) belief is my main inspiration that I might succeed more than others have to date. I’m currently experimenting with “transmission” systems and will post progress and problems in this thread. I would welcome and appreciate any constructive feedback anyone cares to offer.
　
　

　
　
　
　
　
　

bruto · 1st January 2013, 07:09 PM

I hope you're doing your homework, not just on recent flight attempts but on the history of human powered vehicles. It would be wonderful if you can do it, but I suspect there's a reason why all the successful attempts at human powered flight have used pedal power. There aren't a lot of ways you can get more horsepower out of a human critter, given that energy storage is not permitted.

Monketey Ghost · 1st January 2013, 07:19 PM

Great avatar, sir.

Good luck!

ynot · 1st January 2013, 07:21 PM

Originally Posted by bruto

I hope you're doing your homework, not just on recent flight attempts but on the history of human powered vehicles. It would be wonderful if you can do it, but I suspect there's a reason why all the successful attempts at human powered flight have used pedal power. There aren't a lot of ways you can get more horsepower out of a human critter, given that energy storage is not permitted.

I've been fascinated by and have "studied" human powered vehicles for many years. I've also built a few but never an HPH. I will find out quite quickly and inexpensively whether I'm right or wrong. I won't deny failures with a positive attitude.

ynot · 1st January 2013, 07:23 PM

Originally Posted by Monketey Ghost

Great avatar, sir.

Good luck!

Thanks

Great ~~avatar~~ cleavage.

Roboramma · 1st January 2013, 10:30 PM

Hey ynot, I was following the other HPH thread, glad to see you're moving foward! Good luck, hope it pans out!

ynot · 1st January 2013, 11:06 PM

Originally Posted by Roboramma

Hey ynot, I was following the other HPH thread, glad to see you're moving foward! Good luck, hope it pans out!

Cheers

Andrew Wiggin · 1st January 2013, 11:38 PM

Wondering if it would be worth graphing power output versus weight across age range when selecting a pilot/engine. On a bicycle, weight matters less than total power output, except when hill climbing. The helicopter is all hill climb. Wondering if you might find a more optimum power to weight ratio in a fit teenager than in the college athletes that most attempts appear to be using. That or maybe someone with really fit arms and amputated legs from the paralympics.

quarky · 2nd January 2013, 12:12 AM

Originally Posted by ynot

　
　
　
I’m a 62 year old backyard inventor that has the crazy notion that I might be able to build a human powered helicopter (HPH) that might perform better than the past and current attempts of people with much more financial, technical and educational resources.

There’s an incentive simply in the challenge and in being “the first” but there’s also an open Sikorsky Human Powered Helicopter Competition with a success prize of US$250,000 - http://www.vtol.org/awards-and-conte...pter/hph-rules

The main three thing you have to achieve to win are . . .

(1) Reach a height of 3 metres (momentarily).
(2) Hover for 60 seconds.
(3) Stay within a 10 metre square.

The most successful attempts I have found so far are . . .

Yuri (1994) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caHCbuh_Yyc&NR=1&feature=endscreen
Gamera (current) - http://www.agrc.umd.edu/gamera/index.html
Atlas (current) - http://www.aerovelo.com/
Upturn (current) - http://www.ntsworks.com/New_Helicopter.html

Assuming I use a suitably strong, fit and light person(s) to power and pilot my HPH I begin with a “motor” that has a limited power to weight ratio. It’s important therefore that I use the most effective and efficient method of transmitting human power into mechanical power before considering other aspects of design such as rotors/wings etc. Conventional wisdom seems to conclude that a pedalled crank (as used in a bicycle) is the best method and it’s used by all other attempts I’ve seen so far. I don’t agree and think there is a better method for this particular challenge and this (perhaps deluded) belief is my main inspiration that I might succeed more than others have to date. I’m currently experimenting with “transmission” systems and will post progress and problems in this thread. I would welcome and appreciate any constructive feedback anyone cares to offer.
　
　

　
　
　
　
　
　

I share your concerns or suspicions that pedal power may not be optimal, especially in such a short duration of out-put that this contest demands.

That was my main wrestling match with the hp boat races.

rjh01 · 2nd January 2013, 12:06 PM

You could try various methods and see which one produces the most power. Also do not forget to try females. They can be lighter than males. Their legs may not be much weaker.

Fudbucker · 2nd January 2013, 12:13 PM

Originally Posted by ynot

　
　
　
I’m a 62 year old backyard inventor that has the crazy notion that I might be able to build a human powered helicopter (HPH) that might perform better than the past and current attempts of people with much more financial, technical and educational resources.

There’s an incentive simply in the challenge and in being “the first” but there’s also an open Sikorsky Human Powered Helicopter Competition with a success prize of US$250,000 - http://www.vtol.org/awards-and-conte...pter/hph-rules

The main three thing you have to achieve to win are . . .

(1) Reach a height of 3 metres (momentarily).
(2) Hover for 60 seconds.
(3) Stay within a 10 metre square.

The most successful attempts I have found so far are . . .

Yuri (1994) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caHCbuh_Yyc&NR=1&feature=endscreen
Gamera (current) - http://www.agrc.umd.edu/gamera/index.html
Atlas (current) - http://www.aerovelo.com/
Upturn (current) - http://www.ntsworks.com/New_Helicopter.html

Assuming I use a suitably strong, fit and light person(s) to power and pilot my HPH I begin with a “motor” that has a limited power to weight ratio. It’s important therefore that I use the most effective and efficient method of transmitting human power into mechanical power before considering other aspects of design such as rotors/wings etc. Conventional wisdom seems to conclude that a pedalled crank (as used in a bicycle) is the best method and it’s used by all other attempts I’ve seen so far. I don’t agree and think there is a better method for this particular challenge and this (perhaps deluded) belief is my main inspiration that I might succeed more than others have to date. I’m currently experimenting with “transmission” systems and will post progress and problems in this thread. I would welcome and appreciate any constructive feedback anyone cares to offer.
　
　

　
　
　
　
　
　

Are you allowed to use anything like a flywheel?

Mister Earl · 2nd January 2013, 12:14 PM

There's a human powered group in the annual "Punkin' Chunkin'" event. If memory serves, one group outdid the others by switching from pure pedal power to a rowing machine attached to a flywheel. Why just use the legs? You might have balance issues, but they could probably be overcome.

Fudbucker · 2nd January 2013, 12:29 PM

Originally Posted by Mister Earl

There's a human powered group in the annual "Punkin' Chunkin'" event. If memory serves, one group outdid the others by switching from pure pedal power to a rowing machine attached to a flywheel. Why just use the legs? You might have balance issues, but they could probably be overcome.

So if we use a rowing machine, a flywheel, and a big rubber band, we could fly cross country.

MikeG · 2nd January 2013, 12:34 PM

Flywheels are heavy. That's why they work. "Heavy" isn't a great property for a component on an under-powered heavier-than-air flying machine.

Mike

Fudbucker · 2nd January 2013, 12:43 PM

Originally Posted by MikeG

Flywheels are heavy. That's why they work. "Heavy" isn't a great property for a component on an under-powered heavier-than-air flying machine.

Mike

Oh well, it wouldn't work anyway:
Permissible until August 31, 2013:
4.1.4.1 Energy storage devices, such as a flywheel, must remain in the drive system chain and cannot be used to collect/store energy when the rotor/s are not turning. A system that transfers energy from human powered input directly to the rotation of the lifting rotor/s, regardless of the number of stages or type of system used to do this, does not violate the energy storage rule. Since a flywheel can be used as a stabilizing device, then it would be acceptable to use as long as it can be proven that it is not being used to transfer energy to the main rotor/s.

ynot · 2nd January 2013, 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by rjh01

You could try various methods and see which one produces the most power. Also do not forget to try females. They can be lighter than males. Their legs may not be much weaker.

The Gamera (linked in OP) tried an “insanely fit” young woman in their first attempts (Gamera 1) but now seem to only use men (Gamera 2) and the men seem to have produced better results.

I’m not wedded to any particular design so will try anything anyone cares to suggest if it seems worthy of doing so.

ynot · 2nd January 2013, 01:09 PM

Originally Posted by Andrew Wiggin

Wondering if it would be worth graphing power output versus weight across age range when selecting a pilot/engine. On a bicycle, weight matters less than total power output, except when hill climbing. The helicopter is all hill climb. Wondering if you might find a more optimum power to weight ratio in a fit teenager than in the college athletes that most attempts appear to be using. That or maybe someone with really fit arms and amputated legs from the paralympics.

I thought (think) college athletes are fit teenagers. This HPH challenge is unlike any other HPH challenge because it only requires 60 seconds of flight in one position. That’s why I don’t think what may work best for other HPH challenges would necessarily work best for this one (pedalled crank).

ynot · 2nd January 2013, 01:13 PM

Originally Posted by Fudbucker

Are you allowed to use anything like a flywheel?

All the designs linked in the OP use a light flywheel to even out the pedalling output. In each case it’s a light but fast spinning bike wheel. I don't think I will need to use such a flywheel.

ynot · 2nd January 2013, 01:15 PM

Originally Posted by Mister Earl

There's a human powered group in the annual "Punkin' Chunkin'" event. If memory serves, one group outdid the others by switching from pure pedal power to a rowing machine attached to a flywheel. Why just use the legs? You might have balance issues, but they could probably be overcome.

The Gamera team claim a 20% increase in power by also using arms to “pedal” a crank.

ynot · 2nd January 2013, 01:16 PM

Originally Posted by Fudbucker

So if we use a rowing machine, a flywheel, and a big rubber band, we could fly cross country.

And we only need to go up three metres for 60 seconds

icerat · 2nd January 2013, 01:24 PM

If I recall correctly, in terms of short burst energy output, rowing and cross country skiing are the two most intense sports. Cycling however has the advantage of it's stability.

I'm wondering about a standing squat thrust position and a flywheel.

Mister Earl · 2nd January 2013, 01:28 PM

Crazy thought: Do the rules only say one person and one rotor? Quad-rotors seem to be all the rage and are more easy to set up for stability. And why not two rowing machines, facing each other? That way you get power both on the pull and the return stroke. So to speak.

I'm probably explaining this badly.

CNY_Dave · 2nd January 2013, 01:40 PM

I wouldn't try to tackle this, but coming up with a beautiful cheat (hole in the rules or misdirection) tickles my fancy. It's like the pinewood derby, how can there not be a class for 'best cheat'?

quarky · 2nd January 2013, 01:46 PM

This is remotely on topic, but mostly just more evidence of the evidence of my 'out-of-the-box brand of mostly unsuccessful thinking:

In all these hpv challenges, stored energy is an obvious cheat.
One could pedal for 1000 hours; stash the juice; and burn rubber in a drag race.

anyway, in my chase for the fast hp boat race, one idea I had, involving two people, was to launch an umbrella-like device, ahead of the boat, which opened up underwater...
then, the pedal-cranker pulled the boat towards that resistance; as the next one was launched.

It was a variation on the theme of having your boat tied to an anchor, far away, and winding up the line.

This has no relevance to the helicopter, thank god.
Just relevant to the degree of my perversity regarding odd engineering challenges.

To ynot, and the Amish lad, I have this suggestion:

Try to predict what the next big prize within the hpv zone will be, and get the drop on it.
These other teams have a massive head start, and deep pockets.

Should I start a new thread on what I predict will be one of the new challenges?
Probably not.

But if I was to guess, it will be specialized roadways for hpvs...ie, rail-bikes and such.
That's when we'll see 100 mph human powered vehicles. It's already up to 83 mph on clunky roads made for cars.

quarky-out.

ynot · 2nd January 2013, 01:46 PM

Originally Posted by Mister Earl

Crazy thought: Do the rules only say one person and one rotor? Quad-rotors seem to be all the rage and are more easy to set up for stability. And why not two rowing machines, facing each other? That way you get power both on the pull and the return stroke. So to speak.

I'm probably explaining this badly.

You can have as many pilots and rotors/wings as you want to. I’m considering three basic design concepts, none of which would be powered by pedalled cranks . . .

(1) Two coaxial, counter-rotating rotor/wing-sets with two pilots.
(2) Two coaxial, counter-rotating rotor/wing-sets with one pilot.
(3) One self-propelled rotor/wing-set with one pilot (similar to the Upturn).

ynot · 2nd January 2013, 02:13 PM

Wondering what to call my HPH. Had thought of “Gluteus Maximus”. Would be happy to call it “Red Bull (Gives you wings)” if they want to sponsor me. Any other suggestions?

rjh01 · 2nd January 2013, 04:58 PM

Originally Posted by ynot

Wondering what to call my HPH. Had thought of “Gluteus Maximus”. Would be happy to call it “Red Bull (Gives you wings)” if they want to sponsor me. Any other suggestions?

I suggest you get sponsorship. Then they get the naming rights. Plus a manager.

quarky · 2nd January 2013, 05:48 PM

One thing that bothers me:
These helicopters sort of suck.

There isn't even a fantasy of fun from the efforts.

Bikes suspended from rails, however, could actually impact our world in a cool way.

There's something about the deep pockets and the enormous gymnasiums that turn me off, as per hovering 3 meters off the ground for 60 seconds.

I respect the challenge, but it's very hard to get behind the outcome...unless (Yknot, are you still awake?) the effort evolves some novel approaches to human power out-put.

Win or not, we won't be seeing people helicoptering around on their own power.

Mostly, it's a contest of super-light structures. High cost.

AmishmanDan · 2nd January 2013, 06:11 PM

Originally Posted by quarky

One thing that bothers me:
These helicopters sort of suck.

There isn't even a fantasy of fun from the efforts..

I say we should make the entire contest about a fantasy of fun.

quarky · 2nd January 2013, 06:22 PM

Originally Posted by AmishmanDan

I say we should make the entire contest about a fantasy of fun.

I hear that.

Otherwise, it's an exercise in punishment.
Imagine your kids crying "Can I try it now, Daddy, please, can I?"

Actually, no, Junior.
In fact, don't even get jelly on it.

Jelly coated children's fingers have messed up more than a few bold back-yard experiments.

(Got to love them, though.)

AmishmanDan · 2nd January 2013, 06:30 PM

Originally Posted by quarky

I hear that.

Jelly coated children's fingers have messed up more than a few bold back-yard experiments.

So that would explain a few things...

ynot · 2nd January 2013, 06:30 PM

Originally Posted by quarky

One thing that bothers me:
These helicopters sort of suck.

There isn't even a fantasy of fun from the efforts.

Bikes suspended from rails, however, could actually impact our world in a cool way.

There's something about the deep pockets and the enormous gymnasiums that turn me off, as per hovering 3 meters off the ground for 60 seconds.

I respect the challenge, but it's very hard to get behind the outcome...unless (Yknot, are you still awake?) the effort evolves some novel approaches to human power out-put.

Win or not, we won't be seeing people helicoptering around on their own power.

Mostly, it's a contest of super-light structures. High cost.

Well that’s an unusual about-face attitude given your previous posts in other threads where you claimed to be a “cheerleader" and wanted to be kept up with future developments etc.

Not everything has to be done to impact our world, provide a novel approach or save the whales. Some things are fun to do merely because they are. Sorta why crosswords, sudoku and jigsaw puzzles are so popular with many people.

TheRedWorm · 2nd January 2013, 06:32 PM

Originally Posted by ynot

Wondering what to call my HPH. Had thought of “Gluteus Maximus”. Would be happy to call it “Red Bull (Gives you wings)” if they want to sponsor me. Any other suggestions?

Anchor

ynot · 2nd January 2013, 06:37 PM

Originally Posted by TheRedWorm

Anchor

Lead Balloon

and I raise you a

ynot · 2nd January 2013, 06:40 PM

Originally Posted by rjh01

I suggest you get sponsorship. Then they get the naming rights. Plus a manager.

Wouldn’t dream of asking for any form of sponsorship until I’m sure I’ve got something worthy of sponsoring.

thaiboxerken · 2nd January 2013, 06:43 PM

Build a hydrogen reformer and fuel cell that will power it with human fecal matter.

TheRedWorm · 2nd January 2013, 06:45 PM

Originally Posted by ynot

Lead Balloon

and I raise you a

Call:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Personally, I'd call a HPH Windego. I've always loved that particular legend.

ynot · 2nd January 2013, 06:46 PM

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

Build a hydrogen reformer and fuel cell that will power it with human fecal matter.

Sh*t, why didn't I think of that?

bruto · 2nd January 2013, 06:46 PM

I can sort of understand Quarky's point, but some challenges are fun for the person meeting the challenge. Human powered vehicles and land speed records and 50 knot sailboats and the like may never have any technology that trickles down to us, but it's fun to see if you can do something. I am guessing that Ynot and Amishman Dan are getting some fun out of it, but so, in their own way, may be the teams figuring out how to get a half ounce off a wing and get another inch off the ground.

But it's true that the hovering vehicles we see in the videos are very serious and very impractical, expensive and involved. Not the same kind of fun we had putting together odd bicycles and water pumps and diesel lawnmowers and stuff. We're definitely out of the back yard here.

ynot · 2nd January 2013, 06:49 PM

Originally Posted by TheRedWorm

Call:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Personally, I'd call a HPH Windego. I've always loved that particular legend.

Okay you win. Here's your prize -

Quite like "Skyhook" or "Gravity Sucks"

1st January 2013, 05:17 PM	#1
ynot Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: New Zealand Posts: 4,640	Ynot’s Human Powered Helicopter Attempt 　　　 I’m a 62 year old backyard inventor that has the crazy notion that I might be able to build a human powered helicopter (HPH) that might perform better than the past and current attempts of people with much more financial, technical and educational resources. There’s an incentive simply in the challenge and in being “the first” but there’s also an open Sikorsky Human Powered Helicopter Competition with a success prize of US$250,000 - http://www.vtol.org/awards-and-conte...pter/hph-rules The main three thing you have to achieve to win are . . . (1) Reach a height of 3 metres (momentarily). (2) Hover for 60 seconds. (3) Stay within a 10 metre square. The most successful attempts I have found so far are . . . Yuri (1994) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caHCbuh_Yyc&NR=1&feature=endscreen Gamera (current) - http://www.agrc.umd.edu/gamera/index.html Atlas (current) - http://www.aerovelo.com/ Upturn (current) - http://www.ntsworks.com/New_Helicopter.html Assuming I use a suitably strong, fit and light person(s) to power and pilot my HPH I begin with a “motor” that has a limited power to weight ratio. It’s important therefore that I use the most effective and efficient method of transmitting human power into mechanical power before considering other aspects of design such as rotors/wings etc. Conventional wisdom seems to conclude that a pedalled crank (as used in a bicycle) is the best method and it’s used by all other attempts I’ve seen so far. I don’t agree and think there is a better method for this particular challenge and this (perhaps deluded) belief is my main inspiration that I might succeed more than others have to date. I’m currently experimenting with “transmission” systems and will post progress and problems in this thread. I would welcome and appreciate any constructive feedback anyone cares to offer.
	__________________ Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated. My post are all (IMO) unless stated otherwise.

1st January 2013, 07:09 PM	#2
bruto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy Posts: 11,180	I hope you're doing your homework, not just on recent flight attempts but on the history of human powered vehicles. It would be wonderful if you can do it, but I suspect there's a reason why all the successful attempts at human powered flight have used pedal power. There aren't a lot of ways you can get more horsepower out of a human critter, given that energy storage is not permitted.
	__________________ "Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding.(Samuel Johnson) The gods are less for their love of praise....(Wendell Berry)

1st January 2013, 07:19 PM	#3
Monketey Ghost Body of Work Join Date: May 2003 Location: I'm on your screen! Posts: 14,806	Great avatar, sir. Good luck!
	__________________ _{The membership of this forum is henceforth to refer to me as potato-headed Bobby} _{SSKCAS, member in long standing}

1st January 2013, 07:21 PM	#4
ynot Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: New Zealand Posts: 4,640	Originally Posted by bruto I hope you're doing your homework, not just on recent flight attempts but on the history of human powered vehicles. It would be wonderful if you can do it, but I suspect there's a reason why all the successful attempts at human powered flight have used pedal power. There aren't a lot of ways you can get more horsepower out of a human critter, given that energy storage is not permitted. I've been fascinated by and have "studied" human powered vehicles for many years. I've also built a few but never an HPH. I will find out quite quickly and inexpensively whether I'm right or wrong. I won't deny failures with a positive attitude.
	__________________ Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated. My post are all (IMO) unless stated otherwise.

1st January 2013, 07:23 PM	#5
ynot Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: New Zealand Posts: 4,640	Originally Posted by Monketey Ghost Great avatar, sir. Good luck! Thanks Great ~~avatar~~ cleavage.
	__________________ Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated. My post are all (IMO) unless stated otherwise. Last edited by ynot; 1st January 2013 at 07:26 PM.

1st January 2013, 10:30 PM	#6
Roboramma Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shanghai Posts: 7,094	Hey ynot, I was following the other HPH thread, glad to see you're moving foward! Good luck, hope it pans out!
	__________________ "... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." Isaac Asimov

1st January 2013, 11:06 PM	#7
ynot Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: New Zealand Posts: 4,640	Originally Posted by Roboramma Hey ynot, I was following the other HPH thread, glad to see you're moving foward! Good luck, hope it pans out! Cheers
	__________________ Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated. My post are all (IMO) unless stated otherwise.

1st January 2013, 11:38 PM	#8
Andrew Wiggin Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: A small planet named for its dirt. You'll find it filed under 'mostly harmless' Posts: 2,914	Wondering if it would be worth graphing power output versus weight across age range when selecting a pilot/engine. On a bicycle, weight matters less than total power output, except when hill climbing. The helicopter is all hill climb. Wondering if you might find a more optimum power to weight ratio in a fit teenager than in the college athletes that most attempts appear to be using. That or maybe someone with really fit arms and amputated legs from the paralympics.
	__________________ "Everyone takes the limits of his own vision for the limits of the world." - Arthur Schopenhauer "New and stirring things are belittled because if they are not belittled, the humiliating question arises, 'Why then are you not taking part in them?' " - H. G. Wells

2nd January 2013, 12:12 AM	#9
quarky Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 20,454	Originally Posted by ynot 　　　 I’m a 62 year old backyard inventor that has the crazy notion that I might be able to build a human powered helicopter (HPH) that might perform better than the past and current attempts of people with much more financial, technical and educational resources. There’s an incentive simply in the challenge and in being “the first” but there’s also an open Sikorsky Human Powered Helicopter Competition with a success prize of US$250,000 - http://www.vtol.org/awards-and-conte...pter/hph-rules The main three thing you have to achieve to win are . . . (1) Reach a height of 3 metres (momentarily). (2) Hover for 60 seconds. (3) Stay within a 10 metre square. The most successful attempts I have found so far are . . . Yuri (1994) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caHCbuh_Yyc&NR=1&feature=endscreen Gamera (current) - http://www.agrc.umd.edu/gamera/index.html Atlas (current) - http://www.aerovelo.com/ Upturn (current) - http://www.ntsworks.com/New_Helicopter.html Assuming I use a suitably strong, fit and light person(s) to power and pilot my HPH I begin with a “motor” that has a limited power to weight ratio. It’s important therefore that I use the most effective and efficient method of transmitting human power into mechanical power before considering other aspects of design such as rotors/wings etc. Conventional wisdom seems to conclude that a pedalled crank (as used in a bicycle) is the best method and it’s used by all other attempts I’ve seen so far. I don’t agree and think there is a better method for this particular challenge and this (perhaps deluded) belief is my main inspiration that I might succeed more than others have to date. I’m currently experimenting with “transmission” systems and will post progress and problems in this thread. I would welcome and appreciate any constructive feedback anyone cares to offer. 　　　　　　　　 I share your concerns or suspicions that pedal power may not be optimal, especially in such a short duration of out-put that this contest demands. That was my main wrestling match with the hp boat races.
quarky Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 20,454

2nd January 2013, 12:06 PM	#10
rjh01 Gentleman of leisure Tagger Join Date: May 2005 Location: Planet Earth Posts: 17,169	You could try various methods and see which one produces the most power. Also do not forget to try females. They can be lighter than males. Their legs may not be much weaker.
	__________________ dddffffpppqqqq Want to use your computer for something that will make society better? See this thread for details Folding@home

2nd January 2013, 12:13 PM	#11
Fudbucker Critical Thinker Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 488	Originally Posted by ynot 　　　 I’m a 62 year old backyard inventor that has the crazy notion that I might be able to build a human powered helicopter (HPH) that might perform better than the past and current attempts of people with much more financial, technical and educational resources. There’s an incentive simply in the challenge and in being “the first” but there’s also an open Sikorsky Human Powered Helicopter Competition with a success prize of US$250,000 - http://www.vtol.org/awards-and-conte...pter/hph-rules The main three thing you have to achieve to win are . . . (1) Reach a height of 3 metres (momentarily). (2) Hover for 60 seconds. (3) Stay within a 10 metre square. The most successful attempts I have found so far are . . . Yuri (1994) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caHCbuh_Yyc&NR=1&feature=endscreen Gamera (current) - http://www.agrc.umd.edu/gamera/index.html Atlas (current) - http://www.aerovelo.com/ Upturn (current) - http://www.ntsworks.com/New_Helicopter.html Assuming I use a suitably strong, fit and light person(s) to power and pilot my HPH I begin with a “motor” that has a limited power to weight ratio. It’s important therefore that I use the most effective and efficient method of transmitting human power into mechanical power before considering other aspects of design such as rotors/wings etc. Conventional wisdom seems to conclude that a pedalled crank (as used in a bicycle) is the best method and it’s used by all other attempts I’ve seen so far. I don’t agree and think there is a better method for this particular challenge and this (perhaps deluded) belief is my main inspiration that I might succeed more than others have to date. I’m currently experimenting with “transmission” systems and will post progress and problems in this thread. I would welcome and appreciate any constructive feedback anyone cares to offer. 　　　　　　　　 Are you allowed to use anything like a flywheel?

2nd January 2013, 12:14 PM	#12
Mister Earl Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 2,116	There's a human powered group in the annual "Punkin' Chunkin'" event. If memory serves, one group outdid the others by switching from pure pedal power to a rowing machine attached to a flywheel. Why just use the legs? You might have balance issues, but they could probably be overcome.

2nd January 2013, 12:29 PM	#13
Fudbucker Critical Thinker Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 488	Originally Posted by Mister Earl There's a human powered group in the annual "Punkin' Chunkin'" event. If memory serves, one group outdid the others by switching from pure pedal power to a rowing machine attached to a flywheel. Why just use the legs? You might have balance issues, but they could probably be overcome. So if we use a rowing machine, a flywheel, and a big rubber band, we could fly cross country.

2nd January 2013, 12:34 PM	#14
MikeG Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: UK Posts: 1,528	Flywheels are heavy. That's why they work. "Heavy" isn't a great property for a component on an under-powered heavier-than-air flying machine. Mike

2nd January 2013, 12:43 PM	#15
Fudbucker Critical Thinker Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 488	Originally Posted by MikeG Flywheels are heavy. That's why they work. "Heavy" isn't a great property for a component on an under-powered heavier-than-air flying machine. Mike Oh well, it wouldn't work anyway: Permissible until August 31, 2013: 4.1.4.1 Energy storage devices, such as a flywheel, must remain in the drive system chain and cannot be used to collect/store energy when the rotor/s are not turning. A system that transfers energy from human powered input directly to the rotation of the lifting rotor/s, regardless of the number of stages or type of system used to do this, does not violate the energy storage rule. Since a flywheel can be used as a stabilizing device, then it would be acceptable to use as long as it can be proven that it is not being used to transfer energy to the main rotor/s.

2nd January 2013, 01:04 PM	#16
ynot Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: New Zealand Posts: 4,640	Originally Posted by rjh01 You could try various methods and see which one produces the most power. Also do not forget to try females. They can be lighter than males. Their legs may not be much weaker. The Gamera (linked in OP) tried an “insanely fit” young woman in their first attempts (Gamera 1) but now seem to only use men (Gamera 2) and the men seem to have produced better results. I’m not wedded to any particular design so will try anything anyone cares to suggest if it seems worthy of doing so.
	__________________ Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated. My post are all (IMO) unless stated otherwise.

2nd January 2013, 01:09 PM	#17
ynot Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: New Zealand Posts: 4,640	Originally Posted by Andrew Wiggin Wondering if it would be worth graphing power output versus weight across age range when selecting a pilot/engine. On a bicycle, weight matters less than total power output, except when hill climbing. The helicopter is all hill climb. Wondering if you might find a more optimum power to weight ratio in a fit teenager than in the college athletes that most attempts appear to be using. That or maybe someone with really fit arms and amputated legs from the paralympics. I thought (think) college athletes are fit teenagers. This HPH challenge is unlike any other HPH challenge because it only requires 60 seconds of flight in one position. That’s why I don’t think what may work best for other HPH challenges would necessarily work best for this one (pedalled crank).
	__________________ Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated. My post are all (IMO) unless stated otherwise.

2nd January 2013, 01:13 PM	#18
ynot Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: New Zealand Posts: 4,640	Originally Posted by Fudbucker Are you allowed to use anything like a flywheel? All the designs linked in the OP use a light flywheel to even out the pedalling output. In each case it’s a light but fast spinning bike wheel. I don't think I will need to use such a flywheel.
	__________________ Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated. My post are all (IMO) unless stated otherwise. Last edited by ynot; 2nd January 2013 at 01:22 PM.

2nd January 2013, 01:15 PM	#19
ynot Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: New Zealand Posts: 4,640	Originally Posted by Mister Earl There's a human powered group in the annual "Punkin' Chunkin'" event. If memory serves, one group outdid the others by switching from pure pedal power to a rowing machine attached to a flywheel. Why just use the legs? You might have balance issues, but they could probably be overcome. The Gamera team claim a 20% increase in power by also using arms to “pedal” a crank.
	__________________ Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated. My post are all (IMO) unless stated otherwise.

2nd January 2013, 01:16 PM	#20
ynot Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: New Zealand Posts: 4,640	Originally Posted by Fudbucker So if we use a rowing machine, a flywheel, and a big rubber band, we could fly cross country. And we only need to go up three metres for 60 seconds
	__________________ Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated. My post are all (IMO) unless stated otherwise.

2nd January 2013, 01:24 PM	#21
icerat Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: sweden Posts: 3,127	If I recall correctly, in terms of short burst energy output, rowing and cross country skiing are the two most intense sports. Cycling however has the advantage of it's stability. I'm wondering about a standing squat thrust position and a flywheel.
	__________________ Benford's law of controversy - Passion is inversely proportional to the amount of real information available On my Ignore List - Joecool NewtonTrino Porkchopjim Tex2 If someone on my ignore list posts something you'd like me to respond to, please let me know. Last edited by icerat; 2nd January 2013 at 01:30 PM.

2nd January 2013, 01:28 PM	#22
Mister Earl Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 2,116	Crazy thought: Do the rules only say one person and one rotor? Quad-rotors seem to be all the rage and are more easy to set up for stability. And why not two rowing machines, facing each other? That way you get power both on the pull and the return stroke. So to speak. I'm probably explaining this badly.

2nd January 2013, 01:40 PM	#23
CNY_Dave Thinker Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 133	I wouldn't try to tackle this, but coming up with a beautiful cheat (hole in the rules or misdirection) tickles my fancy. It's like the pinewood derby, how can there not be a class for 'best cheat'?
CNY_Dave Thinker Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 133

2nd January 2013, 01:46 PM	#24
quarky Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 20,454	This is remotely on topic, but mostly just more evidence of the evidence of my 'out-of-the-box brand of mostly unsuccessful thinking: In all these hpv challenges, stored energy is an obvious cheat. One could pedal for 1000 hours; stash the juice; and burn rubber in a drag race. anyway, in my chase for the fast hp boat race, one idea I had, involving two people, was to launch an umbrella-like device, ahead of the boat, which opened up underwater... then, the pedal-cranker pulled the boat towards that resistance; as the next one was launched. It was a variation on the theme of having your boat tied to an anchor, far away, and winding up the line. This has no relevance to the helicopter, thank god. Just relevant to the degree of my perversity regarding odd engineering challenges. To ynot, and the Amish lad, I have this suggestion: Try to predict what the next big prize within the hpv zone will be, and get the drop on it. These other teams have a massive head start, and deep pockets. Should I start a new thread on what I predict will be one of the new challenges? Probably not. But if I was to guess, it will be specialized roadways for hpvs...ie, rail-bikes and such. That's when we'll see 100 mph human powered vehicles. It's already up to 83 mph on clunky roads made for cars. quarky-out.
quarky Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 20,454

2nd January 2013, 01:46 PM	#25
ynot Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: New Zealand Posts: 4,640	Originally Posted by Mister Earl Crazy thought: Do the rules only say one person and one rotor? Quad-rotors seem to be all the rage and are more easy to set up for stability. And why not two rowing machines, facing each other? That way you get power both on the pull and the return stroke. So to speak. I'm probably explaining this badly. You can have as many pilots and rotors/wings as you want to. I’m considering three basic design concepts, none of which would be powered by pedalled cranks . . . (1) Two coaxial, counter-rotating rotor/wing-sets with two pilots. (2) Two coaxial, counter-rotating rotor/wing-sets with one pilot. (3) One self-propelled rotor/wing-set with one pilot (similar to the Upturn).
	__________________ Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated. My post are all (IMO) unless stated otherwise. Last edited by ynot; 2nd January 2013 at 01:51 PM.

2nd January 2013, 02:13 PM	#26
ynot Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: New Zealand Posts: 4,640	Wondering what to call my HPH. Had thought of “Gluteus Maximus”. Would be happy to call it “Red Bull (Gives you wings)” if they want to sponsor me. Any other suggestions?
	__________________ Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated. My post are all (IMO) unless stated otherwise.

2nd January 2013, 04:58 PM	#27
rjh01 Gentleman of leisure Tagger Join Date: May 2005 Location: Planet Earth Posts: 17,169	Originally Posted by ynot Wondering what to call my HPH. Had thought of “Gluteus Maximus”. Would be happy to call it “Red Bull (Gives you wings)” if they want to sponsor me. Any other suggestions? I suggest you get sponsorship. Then they get the naming rights. Plus a manager.
	__________________ dddffffpppqqqq Want to use your computer for something that will make society better? See this thread for details Folding@home

2nd January 2013, 05:48 PM	#28
quarky Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 20,454	One thing that bothers me: These helicopters sort of suck. There isn't even a fantasy of fun from the efforts. Bikes suspended from rails, however, could actually impact our world in a cool way. There's something about the deep pockets and the enormous gymnasiums that turn me off, as per hovering 3 meters off the ground for 60 seconds. I respect the challenge, but it's very hard to get behind the outcome...unless (Yknot, are you still awake?) the effort evolves some novel approaches to human power out-put. Win or not, we won't be seeing people helicoptering around on their own power. Mostly, it's a contest of super-light structures. High cost.
quarky Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 20,454

2nd January 2013, 06:11 PM	#29
AmishmanDan Scholar Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 64	Originally Posted by quarky One thing that bothers me: These helicopters sort of suck. There isn't even a fantasy of fun from the efforts.. I say we should make the entire contest about a fantasy of fun.
AmishmanDan Scholar Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 64

2nd January 2013, 06:22 PM	#30
quarky Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 20,454	Originally Posted by AmishmanDan I say we should make the entire contest about a fantasy of fun. I hear that. Otherwise, it's an exercise in punishment. Imagine your kids crying "Can I try it now, Daddy, please, can I?" Actually, no, Junior. In fact, don't even get jelly on it. Jelly coated children's fingers have messed up more than a few bold back-yard experiments. (Got to love them, though.)
quarky Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 20,454

2nd January 2013, 06:30 PM	#31
AmishmanDan Scholar Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 64	Originally Posted by quarky I hear that. Jelly coated children's fingers have messed up more than a few bold back-yard experiments. So that would explain a few things...
AmishmanDan Scholar Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 64

2nd January 2013, 06:32 PM	#33
TheRedWorm I AM the Red Worm! Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Body: Michigan, Heart: Chicago Posts: 3,881	Originally Posted by ynot Wondering what to call my HPH. Had thought of “Gluteus Maximus”. Would be happy to call it “Red Bull (Gives you wings)” if they want to sponsor me. Any other suggestions? Anchor
	__________________ See I'm not a monster, I'm just ahead of the curve. -Joker Working them to death is murder. Making them live like pigs and dying from disease is murder. Shooting them next to a ditch is murder. Digging them up and burning them to hide your murder, is extra credit evil. -beachnut

2nd January 2013, 06:37 PM	#34
ynot Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: New Zealand Posts: 4,640	Originally Posted by TheRedWorm Anchor Lead Balloon and I raise you a
	__________________ Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated. My post are all (IMO) unless stated otherwise.

2nd January 2013, 06:40 PM	#35
ynot Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: New Zealand Posts: 4,640	Originally Posted by rjh01 I suggest you get sponsorship. Then they get the naming rights. Plus a manager. Wouldn’t dream of asking for any form of sponsorship until I’m sure I’ve got something worthy of sponsoring.
	__________________ Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated. My post are all (IMO) unless stated otherwise.

2nd January 2013, 06:43 PM	#36
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 20,947	Build a hydrogen reformer and fuel cell that will power it with human fecal matter.
	__________________ All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine