Re: Human powered flight (lazy Jethro :) )

[Matthias Czech]

Am 03.07.2017 um 12:37 schrieb Jethro_uk:

>
> it briefly touched on the idea of human powered flight, which jogged my
> memory about a few news stories from years ago. However, the subject has
> gone quiet of late.
>
> I was idly wondering what the possibilities are of knocking up something,
> given the advances in materials sciences ? Pedal power seems the most
> obvious (we already have bikes). Would it be possible to press an
> existing (lightweight !) bike into service ?
>
A pedal-powered plane already flew over quite a distance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_Daedalus

[Andy Burns]

Jethro_uk wrote:

> it briefly touched on the idea of human powered flight, which jogged my
> memory about a few news stories from years ago. However, the subject has
> gone quiet of late.

I believe an Austrian company has sponsoring research for a number of
years ...

<https://youtu.be/rcbBwNwsaCc>

There was also the Sikorsky prize winner

<https://youtu.be/syJq10EQkog>

[newshound]

On 7/3/2017 11:37 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:
> Catching up on iPlayer suggestions, and I happened to watch the
> fascinating "Invented in the north" programme
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b08w1gqq/invented-in-the-north

>
> it briefly touched on the idea of human powered flight, which jogged my
> memory about a few news stories from years ago. However, the subject has
> gone quiet of late.
>

> I was idly wondering what the possibilities are of knocking up something,
> given the advances in materials sciences ? Pedal power seems the most
> obvious (we already have bikes). Would it be possible to press an
> existing (lightweight !) bike into service ?

Plenty of good stuff already out there, but to quote or probably
misquote Scotty, you can't get round the laws of nature.

People have looked into flight on other planets as you vary gravity and
atmospheric density. We're not at the optimum point on earth; however
much you improve the technology then a pretty fit person isn't going to
be able to do much, and only then on a calm day.

And we already know what is possible, just look at the pelagic birds.

[alan_m]

On 03/07/2017 11:37, Jethro_uk wrote:
> Catching up on iPlayer suggestions, and I happened to watch the
> fascinating "Invented in the north" programme
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b08w1gqq/invented-in-the-north
>

Channel 4 had a program
Speed with Guy Martin
Series 1 Episode 3: Human Powered Aircraft (45 minutes)

I believe it is still available on their watch it again service.


--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 03/07/17 11:37, Jethro_uk wrote:
> Catching up on iPlayer suggestions, and I happened to watch the
> fascinating "Invented in the north" programme
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b08w1gqq/invented-in-the-north
>

> it briefly touched on the idea of human powered flight, which jogged my
> memory about a few news stories from years ago. However, the subject has
> gone quiet of late.
>
> I was idly wondering what the possibilities are of knocking up something,
> given the advances in materials sciences ? Pedal power seems the most
> obvious (we already have bikes). Would it be possible to press an
> existing (lightweight !) bike into service ?
>

> The main areas of attack are wings, and propulsion (assuming a fixed-wing
> design is the only viable option ... flapping wings seem a tad juvenile).
>
> So we need a wing that can generate enough lift at (say) 20 mph for the
> rider and machine (say 120 Kg ????)
>
> And a propulsion system that can push that weight along in the air the
> moment the wheels leave the ground. Maybe an assembly of propellers
> driven by the pedals ?
>
> If we set modest targets (no need to climb above 2 metres :) ) and basic
> control (no need to loop the loop), how doable is it *really* ?
>
> I probably could dig out the necessary equations etc, but I'm hoping
> folks here have those at their fingers :)
>
> Just to add some spice, if the whole endeavour is fundamentally
> impractical, how much extra energy would be needed to assist ?
>
you can easily calcilate how much power you need for level and climbing
flight by looking at rate of descent (or airspeed and gliding angle, if
youy like).

Taht times the amount of weighhjt you need to carrty, is te rate of
peotentual energy loss you have to overcome to srat aloft. As for
climbing, well imagine running up a set of stairs 1000 feet high,
carrying an airfarme on your back.


Ther are no magic solutions. The problem remains what it always has been
since leonrado da vincii, the dreaded 'watts per pound' that you need to
get up and stay up.

HUmn beings are not built for even brief high value watts per pound and
even birds only maage it for small wingspans.

It is just about poossible to pedal a huge flimsy structure into the air
on a dead calm day. But that's it..




--
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such
time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic
and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for
the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the
truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

Joseph Goebbels

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 03/07/17 15:21, Jethro_uk wrote:
>> It is just about poossible to pedal a huge flimsy structure into the air
>> on a dead calm day. But that's it..

> Pretty much what I intuitively guessed (if it's not common by now, it
> never will be.)
>
> Which leads onto the supplementary Q about how much additional power is
> required, (in the event we ever get a nuclear battery).

In general 50 Watts per lb will get you a sort of light aircaft/airliner
sort of pereformace and it gets better uop ro aroun 150W/lb which is
sort of warbird performance - hawker tempest etc.

You can calculate the thing in that 9.8 watts will raise one kilogram
one meter in one second.

For those who think in pounds, do your own bloody sums.

anyway with decemnt electric motors and props I used to fly lightweight
modesl level on 12W/lb. 50W/lb gave a brisk rate of climb, 100W/lb is
serious aerobatic and 150W/lb is capable of sustained verictical climbs.

battery electric planes are available commercially for full size use and
perform well, for a short time.

Beacuse the watts per lb gives simalar performance in aa model as the
full size, that is the metric to use.


--
“But what a weak barrier is truth when it stands in the way of an
hypothesis!”

Mary Wollstonecraft

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 03/07/17 16:01, Jethro_uk wrote:

> Really useful stats, thanks.
>
> No idea what an *average* human adult (male) can pump out for relatively
> long periods ... I do know the brain draws some stupid figure on full
> throttle - 100W ?

Yep. about that.
>
> All of which highlights how incredibly efficient natures solution to
> energy storage and distribution is. If we could make a battery with the
> energy density of glucose, we'd be away !
>
I can get 100W out of a 5 oz lipo battery and a motor weighing 2 ounces
(though only for ten mins)
Energy density of diesel or gasoline way above glucose.



--
There’s a mighty big difference between good, sound reasons and reasons
that sound good.

Burton Hillis (William Vaughn, American columnist)

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 03/07/17 16:04, Jethro_uk wrote:

> On Mon, 03 Jul 2017 15:01:34 +0000, Jethro_uk wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 03 Jul 2017 15:42:51 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>

>> Really useful stats, thanks.
>>
>> No idea what an *average* human adult (male) can pump out for relatively
>> long periods ... I do know the brain draws some stupid figure on full
>> throttle - 100W ?
>>

>> All of which highlights how incredibly efficient natures solution to
>> energy storage and distribution is. If we could make a battery with the
>> energy density of glucose, we'd be away !
>

> In answer to my own question:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_power
>
> suggests 400W - about 1/2 horsepower.
>
should fly a pilot weighing 4lb nicely...

Oh....

--
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign,
that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."

Jonathan Swift.

[Chris J Dixon]

Jethro_uk wrote:

>In the same programme, there was a flywheel-maintained train which runs
>about 10 miles from where I live.
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parry_People_Movers
>
>It seems slightly nonsensical in this day and age that I have to watch a
>national TV programme to find out something you'd think would be headline
>local news.

I suppose it isn't news now because it has been running for quite
some time. It is an interesting solution, but isn't really
scalable in a way that can be applied more generally.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK
ch...@cdixon.me.uk

Plant amazing Acers.

[Brian Gaff]

Well its been done, but most of the pilots have been very fit people to say
the least. You seem to need lightweight materials obviously and some kind of
skin material like clingfilm. apparently the big issue is stability and not
flying backward in a headwind!
Most of the ones I've heardabout usually fall to bits on landing as they
are not very strong.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Jethro_uk" <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message
news:ojd6on$tiu$1...@dont-email.me...

[Brian Gaff]

I suppose if you really want to be different you cold climb up the stairs to
a high roof. Sit down for a rest and a drink, then get in a glider and hope
to catch a thermal. On the other hand why worry about that. Use solar and
even nuclear. Google are reputedly interesting in a nuclear powered drone
for using like a communications hub in disaster areas. I'd be a bit wary
myself of a large lump of nuclear material in the air over me if something
went wrong with the technology.

Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please!

"newshound" <news...@stevejqr.plus.com> wrote in message
news:hq-dnb3AT5fApMfE...@brightview.co.uk...

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 03/07/17 16:58, Jethro_uk wrote:

>>>
>> I can get 100W out of a 5 oz lipo battery and a motor weighing 2 ounces
>> (though only for ten mins)
>> Energy density of diesel or gasoline way above glucose.
>

> Ah, but efficiency ?
>
around 85%.

plus a 75% prop efficiency.

glocuse? probably around 5%


--
"In our post-modern world, climate science is not powerful because it is
true: it is true because it is powerful."

Lucas Bergkamp

[T i m]

On Mon, 3 Jul 2017 10:37:11 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
<jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

>Catching up on iPlayer suggestions, and I happened to watch the
>fascinating "Invented in the north" programme
>
>http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b08w1gqq/invented-in-the-north
>
>it briefly touched on the idea of human powered flight, which jogged my
>memory about a few news stories from years ago. However, the subject has
>gone quiet of late.
>

Just from a personal / historical POV ... Whilst at a '(Zapple?)
Festival of human power' (in my Sinclair C5) at Milton Keynes many
many years ago (1985?), along with human powered cycles, trikes and
quads, there were human powered hydrofoils running on the lake and I
think it was the 'Gossamer Albatross', a fairly early human powered
aeroplane that I think made one very short hop as the conditions
weren't really suitable (too windy).

The most impressive vehicle there was a fully faired tandem called (if
memory serves correctly), 'Dark Horse' that was captained by an
athlete and had what could have been a large ape as the stoker!

Cheers, T i m

[newshound]

On 7/3/2017 6:48 PM, Brian Gaff wrote:
> I suppose if you really want to be different you cold climb up the stairs to
> a high roof. Sit down for a rest and a drink, then get in a glider and hope
> to catch a thermal. On the other hand why worry about that. Use solar and
> even nuclear. Google are reputedly interesting in a nuclear powered drone
> for using like a communications hub in disaster areas. I'd be a bit wary
> myself of a large lump of nuclear material in the air over me if something
> went wrong with the technology.
> Brian
>

Not a new idea!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear-powered_aircraft

[Sam Rowell]

Tim can you get in touch with me samuel...@hotmail.co.uk Would love to chat about your experience in C5s at this event :)

--
For full context, visit https://www.homeownershub.com/uk-diy/human-powered-flight-lazy-jethro-1221615-.htm