Help Design a Human-Powered Helicopter

  • Thread starter Thread starter jzvonek
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Design Helicopter
AI Thread Summary
A website has been launched to design a human-powered helicopter, seeking engineers to tackle this challenging project. Participants discuss the feasibility, noting that achieving sustained flight poses significant engineering hurdles, particularly regarding rotor efficiency and power output from human pedaling. The competition rules specify that the helicopter must take off and hover within a 10-meter square, which raises questions about rotor size and stability. Some participants express skepticism about the practicality of a human-powered helicopter, while others believe it could serve as a valuable educational project. Overall, the discussion emphasizes the need for innovative engineering solutions to overcome the obstacles presented by human-powered flight.
jzvonek
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hello,

I have started a website to facilitate the design of a human-powered helicopter. Please visit this website if you are interested in joining:

http://sites.google.com/site/humanpoweredhelicopter/

We need great engineers to solve this difficult problem. If interested in giving your time, please email me at jzvonek@gmail.com.

Thanks.

-John
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Difficult indeed! At face value it seems like an impossible problem!
 
Looking at the human-powered plane efforts, and being an amateur bicyclist, I see no way for a human-powered helicopter to be practical for more than a few seconds. Ouch.
 
First you need a good cyclist. Bringing the blades to velocity is an issue. I'd read the fine print over how to torque it up. The less stress on the pilot to overcome inertia under potentially adverse gearing could be a major issue.

Only 3 meters?? A lot of ground effect is in play. Can the rotor tips be closer to the ground than 3 meters?

Stability and control I would leave up to electronics if allowed.

The Gossamer Albatross had a wingspan of 47 feet with a root cord of about 6 feet. The top speed during the Channel crossing was 18 mph. Keep that in mind when you consider rotor diameter. Isn't it the last 1/4 of the rotor blade that does half the lifting?

So where are the rules of the game? A Wikipedia page isn't enough.
 
Last edited:
Here is a link to the rules:

http://www.vtol.org/awards/hphregs.html

Also, the prize has just been increased to $250,000 from the original $20,000.

I don't know if ground effect would be significant with the slow-moving rotors of a human-powered helicopter. I've seen experiment results that show the effect dropping off quickly as the rotors move away from the ground (< 3m).

Stability and control will be major issues, and I believe electronics are not allowed by the rules.

And the problem is not impossible. We have better engineering tools than at any time in the past. We just have to take advantage of them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
When they say 'human powered' - do they count 'human fuelled'?
A gas turbine will run on bio-diesel !
 
Looks like you are going to need Leonardo on this one.
 
He's going to need angels for this. They're the only way a human powered helicopter is going to get off the ground.

mgb_phys said:
A gas turbine will run on bio-diesel !
It's people. Jet fuel is made out of people. They're making our jet fuel out of people.
 
I wouldn't be as quick to dismiss a human powered helicopter. But, according to the set of rules quoted, it has to take off and remain within a 10 meter square. This limits the blades to about 4 meter each.

I'm not versed in helicopter efficiency, but it seems that twice the rotor disk area should about double the efficiency. Earlier I noted that the Gossamer Albatross had a wingspan 47 foot span. This might compare to a 47 foot rotor disk.
 
Last edited:
  • #10
I'll absolutely dismiss it. The power that can be provided by a good cyclist is somewhere in the area of 300 W. Not only will you be hard pressed to find a very light person that can put out that kind of continuous power, you have to deal with the structural aspects of aa helicopter. It does not lend itself to light and whispy structures like the Albatross did.
 
  • #11
FredGarvin said:
... you have to deal with the structural aspects of aa helicopter. It does not lend itself to light and whispy structures like the Albatross did.

Why is that?
 
  • #12
Look at the rotor head and blades alone.
 
  • #13
Phrak said:
I wouldn't be as quick to dismiss a human powered helicopter. But, according to the set of rules quoted, it has to take off and remain within a 10 meter square. This limits the blades to about 4 meter each.
You are misreading the rules. It's not the whole vehicle; just one single point on the vehicle.
A reference point on the non-rotating part of the machine will be established an a means whereby the observers can judge that the machine stayed within the confines of the 10-meter square.​
FredGarvin said:
I'll absolutely dismiss it.
The basic feat has already been achieved, twice. Just not for the requisite time and height.
 
  • #14
D H is right. Human-powered helicopters have already gotten off the ground. A few great ideas on how to improve the design will win the prize.
 
  • #15
D H said:
You are misreading the rules. It's not the whole vehicle; just one single point on the vehicle.
A reference point on the non-rotating part of the machine will be established an a means whereby the observers can judge that the machine stayed within the confines of the 10-meter square.​

Yes, I believe you're right. It's ambigiously written.
 
  • #16
How is that ambiguous?
 
  • #17
D H said:
How is that ambiguous?

You're joking? Nowhere is it stated what parts of the craft cannot drift outside the square, or even for that matter if they are talking about the 'reference point' staying in the square.
 
  • #18
FredGarvin said:
Look at the rotor head and blades alone.

Well, it doesn't have to support a gun plateform, and there's more than one way to skin a cat. Look at the toy models available and their novel designs.
 
  • #19
FredGarvin said:
He's going to need angels for this. They're the only way a human powered helicopter is going to get off the ground.


It's people. Jet fuel is made out of people. They're making our jet fuel out of people.

Fred...them old Charlton Heston movies are really takin their toll on you, aren't they??
 
  • #20
D H said:
The basic feat has already been achieved, twice. Just not for the requisite time and height.
Source please. A quick Google search showed a "helicopter" that barely got off the ground and which I agree is a human powered hovercraft, not a helicopter.

The competition states that they have never awarded this award.

I'll sit firm in my skepticism.
 
  • #21
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #22
My definition of "helicopter" differs GREATLY from theirs.

.2 meters is well within ground effect. It still looks like useless form of a hovercraft. But I guess everything has to start out somewhere.
 
  • #23
Ranger Mike said:
Fred...them old Charlton Heston movies are really takin their toll on you, aren't they??
Hey. MGB started it...
 
  • #24
FredGarvin said:
Hey. MGB started it...

i stand corrected..a lot of pathos out there ,Pathos (pronounced /ˈpeɪθɒs/; Greek: πάθος)
 
  • #25
After looking at the rules, I believe the contest is doable. It only says you need to momentarily exceed 3 meters and total hover time is only 1 min. A cyclist can put out a lot more power for 1 min than s/he can for three hours.

Just keep in mind, this is nowhere close to the achievment of the Gossamer Albatross, which actually had sustained, controllable flight for close to 3 hours. This "helicpoter" prize seems pretty pointless to me.
 
  • #26
russ_watters said:
This "helicpoter" prize seems pretty pointless to me.
Depends on the meaning of "pointless". As a viable form of transportation for the masses, I agree. (Then again, so is the Gossamer Albatross.) As a college engineering project, I disagree. Something like this could be quite instructive.
 
  • #27
As a teaching tool I completely agree this is a good contest. However I still think that putting the moniker of helicopter to these machines is akin to me calling my 3 year old's tricycle a human powered car.
 
  • #28
From http://www.humanpoweredhelicopters.org/davinci/index.htm

This is a picture of the Da Vinci 3, rotor tip, I think.

Is that a spool of kit string I spy in the rectangular cut-out?

http://www.humanpoweredhelicopters.org/davinci/image003.jpg

Joe, the guy with the yellow nametag will be the pilot for today's demonstration.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #29
What about cheating? Use a person to charge a spring then the spring to spin the rotors and lift the craft. Technically it's human powered, and it gives you enough power to actually lift off.

Beyond that I don't think it's possible, unless you are using huge rotors and then it's more of a spiraling airplane than a helicopter.
 
Last edited:
  • #30
FredGarvin said:
As a teaching tool I completely agree this is a good contest. However I still think that putting the moniker of helicopter to these machines is akin to me calling my 3 year old's tricycle a human powered car.

Pointless? But think of all the money and glad-handing. The professors get to publish on every meaningless detail, foundations get to disperse funds and claim to be important contributors, post grads get to slick-up their resumes, fundraisers get paid. It's bounty all around. They just have to get the silly contraption suitably aloft...
 
Last edited:
  • #31
in the rules it says no energy saving devices, but the rotor assy is exempt. use the rotors(2+ counter-rotating) as flywheels. it states a flight lenght, but I didn't see a total time duration. If it took 2 persons 2-5+ hours to slowly keep spinning up the rotors (w/ no lift) until lift off, I would think, in theory, the energy stored could excede the extra energy to then hang it in the air long enough
how long to the tour biker's ride continuously?

dr
 
  • #32
if the target website has a way to contribute ideas I could not find it
so I am going to toss this out in here
if 3 rotors were used, each of different mass, smallest (in diameter) was heaviest, largest lightest, and a variable gearbox could divert torque between all 3, you could generate rotor speed with all of them, then feather the power to the largest diameter one to speed it up, and use the middle sized one for counter rotational stability. since reaction of pedaling would want to spin you around, you could offset that by having the middle rotor of equal "inertial mass" as the body, and compensating for no tail rotor. all lifting surfaces would not cover the next. from above it would look like 3 concentric circles

dr
 
  • #33
Very nice post with a ton of informative information. I really appreciate the fact that you approach these topics from a stand point of knowledge and information
instead of the typical “I think” mentality that you see so much on the internet these days.
 
  • #34
I just checked the website the OP was starting, and seems as though it is not being updated. so, I'm in if someone wants to take the lead and we build one. Since I have my own industrial park in the back yard, we should be able to do it on a shoe string.

dr
 
  • #35
If "Gossamer" manpowered planes work, at least I cannot see anything preventing two such planes connected together circulating around a common center = "helicopter". That may be boiled down to a man powered helicopter where the rotor is not driven by center shaft, but from from smaller propellers at rotor wing ends. Wing units (perhaps several parallel layers as in WWI combat planes) behind towing propellers, placed rather far out from center
shaft. Propellers could be driven by wires as in garden trimmers.

I agree it may appear less efficient letting rotor be towed by propeller - but I can see
gossamer planes (towed by propeller) lift while manpowered helicopters (driven by center shafts)
don't lift. In aerodynamics not always common sense applies. :cool:
 
Last edited:
  • #36
M Grandin said:
If "Gossamer" manpowered planes work, at least I cannot see anything preventing two such planes connected together circulating around a common center = "helicopter". That may be boiled down to a man powered helicopter where the rotor is not driven by center shaft, but from from smaller propellers at rotor wing ends. Wing units (perhaps several parallel layers as in WWI combat planes) behind towing propellers, placed rather far out from center
shaft. Propellers could be driven by wires as in garden trimmers.

I agree it may appear less efficient letting rotor be towed by propeller - but I can see
gossamer planes (towed by propeller) lift while manpowered helicopters (driven by center shafts)
don't lift. In aerodynamics not always common sense applies. :cool:

Sorry, according to http://flight.engr.ucdavis.edu/~smlarwood/documents/LarwoodSaiki1990.pdf
that kind of solutions have earlier been developed. But evidently not a success. At least not
hitherto. :cry:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #37
I've read every paper on this subject and will be happy to answer any questions. I will say this, it's certainly possible, but you walk a very fine line. I see a lot of misinformation being stated in this thread.

Fred, PM me your email address. I can't send you pms because you have it turned off.
 
  • #38
It seems to me that for a helicopter to achieve free flight (outside of the ground effect) it needs to push enough air down to have sufficient mass flow to maintain altitude. Based on the power requirements of other helicopters which are engine powered, it would have to have more than 10 horsepower available, far more than any bicyclist can achieve.

Edit- any 130-lb bicyclist anyway. Weight is the #1 killer on these things.
 
  • #39
Mech_Engineer said:
It seems to me that for a helicopter to achieve free flight (outside of the ground effect) it needs to push enough air down to have sufficient mass flow to maintain altitude. Based on the power requirements of other helicopters which are engine powered, it would have to have more than 10 horsepower available, far more than any bicyclist can achieve.

Edit- any 130-lb bicyclist anyway. Weight is the #1 killer on these things.

No, this is wrong and not based on any sort of calculation. Run the numbers and you will find you are off by an order of magnitude.

You are about right on the weight of the cyclist though.
 
Last edited:
  • #40
Do the rules prohibit offsetting the load with, say, lighter than air wings?
 
  • #41
BenchTop said:
Do the rules prohibit offsetting the load with, say, lighter than air wings?

Lighter than air construction, and energy storage devices are explicitly prohibited. Check out the www.vtol.org website for the official rules, which goes over everything in detail.
 
  • #42
russ_watters said:
After looking at the rules, I believe the contest is doable. It only says you need to momentarily exceed 3 meters and total hover time is only 1 min. A cyclist can put out a lot more power for 1 min than s/he can for three hours.

Just keep in mind, this is nowhere close to the achievment of the Gossamer Albatross, which actually had sustained, controllable flight for close to 3 hours. This "helicpoter" prize seems pretty pointless to me.

Then you need to study helicopters so you won't make such a naive statement! This is, in fact, harder, than a human powered airplane. McCready said so himself - if you don't know who he is Google him.
 
  • #43
I had a thought (beware)...

A lot of stuctural weight is required to support the pilot in the middle.

http://www.humanpoweredhelicopters.org/yuri1/YURI_1.jpg

Now, it's well established by the Gossamer Albatross that a single Bryan Allen can power a plane over a comparatively long time span in straight and level flight. Flying in circles would require a bit more work, but over a shorter span of time.

Four of these things,

http://www.bfi.org/images/content/frontpage_events/gossamer.jpg

tethered to fly in a circle, mutually constrained by relatively light weight struts and cables, and powered by four Bryan Allens would be capable of achieving the desired result.

The craft should have an overall diameter of about 400 feet. That would take a big gymnasium.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #44
Useless facts. The largest hanger in the world wouldn't be enough.

http://www.distant.ca/UselessFacts/fact.asp?ID=165

"CargoLifter hangar, located in Brand, Germany (60 kilometres south of Berlin) on a former Soviet military airport, is the largest self-supporting hangar in the world. With 360-meters in length, 210-meters in width and 107-meters in height the hanger was designed to accommodate the planned CargoLifter CL 160, a 260-meter long airship."

Self propelled helicoptering should be an outdoor sport.
 
  • #45
Phrak said:
Useless facts. The largest hanger in the world wouldn't be enough.

http://www.distant.ca/UselessFacts/fact.asp?ID=165

"CargoLifter hangar, located in Brand, Germany (60 kilometres south of Berlin) on a former Soviet military airport, is the largest self-supporting hangar in the world. With 360-meters in length, 210-meters in width and 107-meters in height the hanger was designed to accommodate the planned CargoLifter CL 160, a 260-meter long airship."

Self propelled helicoptering should be an outdoor sport.

Provided you have very calm winds, yes. Large indoor areas pose problems because the circulation of the air inside the (Gymnasium!) as a result of the induced velocity will cause the rotorcraft to inevitable drift outside the limits of the (10?) meter box.
 
  • #46
Cyrus said:
Provided you have very calm winds, yes. Large indoor areas pose problems because the circulation of the air inside the (Gymnasium!) as a result of the induced velocity will cause the rotorcraft to inevitable drift outside the limits of the (10?) meter box.

It may be moot, since the widest indoor flat area I could find was about 260 meters, but I'm not following. The helicopter will induce some toroidal flow of air--up on the outside, and down in the middle. Will off-center cause positive feedback to draw it further off-center?
 
  • #47
Cyrus said:
No, this is wrong and not based on any sort of calculation. Run the numbers and you will find you are off by an order of magnitude.

You are about right on the weight of the cyclist though.

What formulas should I be using to calculate the required power for a helicopter?

I looked at it from a thrust standpoint, and used the weight of the DaVinci III as a guide for human-powered helicopter dimensions. With a weight of 227 pounds, and an induced wind velocity of 35 mi/hr (I just guessed at this, the DaVinci III report had no specs), you have to push 142 lb/s of air for a total of 111,600 cfm, and that works out to 10.5 horsepower required to gain stable flight outside of the ground effect.
 
  • #48
Mech_Engineer said:
What formulas should I be using to calculate the required power for a helicopter?

I looked at it from a thrust standpoint, and used the weight of the DaVinci III as a guide for human-powered helicopter dimensions. With a weight of 227 pounds, and an induced wind velocity of 35 mi/hr (I just guessed at this, the DaVinci III report had no specs), you have to push 142 lb/s of air for a total of 111,600 cfm, and that works out to 10.5 horsepower required to gain stable flight outside of the ground effect.

You should write and run a BEMT code. I have no idea where your ad-hoc numbers come from. As a first order analysis, you could just use momentum theory itself (which does not require any code).

P = T^{3/2}/\sqrt{2\rho A}

Using R = 50' and T = 227lb, the power is 559.59 (whatever units it is fl-lb/s, or something...) or about 1.01 HP. This is obviously a first order analysis and one would have to use BEMT for better estimates at HOGE. An order of magnitude less than your estimate! (And we have not even gotten into any of the actual hard technical challenges!)
 
Last edited:
  • #49
Cyrus said:
Then you need to study helicopters so you won't make such a naive statement! This is, in fact, harder, than a human powered airplane.
You misunderstood my point. I know it is harder than a human powered airplane - and that's why they have to make the prize for such a small achievement.

In other words, you can't fly this thing across the English Channel.
 
  • #50
russ_watters said:
You misunderstood my point. I know it is harder than a human powered airplane - and that's why they have to make the prize for such a small achievement.

In other words, you can't fly this thing across the English Channel.

My bad. You would have a hell of a time flying this thing even in a straight line! The power requirements are horrible, and the rotation of the blades mean the stresses quickly kill you, because things have to be build bulkier. It's a hell of a problem compared to the human powered airplane (HPA).
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Is It Possible to Design a Solar-Powered Helicopter?
Replies
31
Views
18K
HELP ME - Lift equation for Helicopter Fan
Replies
6
Views
16K
Velocity Calculation for helicopter rotor question
Replies
1
Views
8K
Mechanical Design Engineer in Kentucky :)
Replies
2
Views
648
Help Me Design a Motorcycle Airbox for Charity Racing Series
Replies
3
Views
2K
Subsonic airbreathing engines and inlet blade angle
Replies
7
Views
3K
Helicopter UAV - Required Power
Replies
2
Views
5K
How Can I Calculate Lift for a Human-Powered Helicopter?
Replies
3
Views
19K
Help needed to solve a static analysis for the design of the Shaft for a Grinding Machine
Replies
4
Views
2K
News The US Digital Service, aka DOGE
Replies
2
Views
1K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top