Atlas Human-Powered Helicopter - AHS Sikorsky Prize Flight 

hmmm, maybe it is very plausible then to lift payloads with ion wind (lifter) type methods. There are patents.

@H D It actually has more to do with momentum transfer. Small objects moving fast have far less momentum than large object with same energy but moving slow. Kinetic Energy = 1/2 Mass * Velocity * Velocity. Momentum = Mass * Velocity.

@H D Momentum Transfer to Energy Expended Ratio is the primary factor. This is not an aerodynamics trick. You cannot design a small rotor with Superior aerodynamics to compensate for the size. The fundamental purpose of larger rotors is to move a lot of are slowly to maximize momentum transfer with a small amount of energy. It's so fundamental that there are fancy equations that can compute the theoretical lift to thrust ratio of a given disk size.

@H D Interial is based on mass, but mass is based on the the number of air molecules you are disturbing. Larger rotors disturb a lot more molecules, but it disturbs each molecule less. This is why there is a rotor equation that calculates thrust-to-lift ratio based on the area of the rotor disk.

@H D You know I'm a pretty patient guy, but you're wearing me thin with your antics and insults. So I'm going to patiently explain this one last time and after that I'm just going to ignore you if you keep this up. Mass and Density of Air is a fixed known quantity. There's a cylinder of air under a rotar determined by the area of the rotor disk. That entire cylinder of air is disturbed by the rotors. Big rotors means a big cylindar of air. More air molecules means more combined mass. If you can move 100 times the mass but with less velocity change, you get more momentum transfer even if you used the same energy and power. This is the fundamental physics of wing or rotor efficiency.

INTERNATIONALvids Exactly right. The genius of the Sikorsky prize was that it correctly posited that a human powered helicopter was feasible, but only barely. The many comments that the winning machine is 'not practical as a means of transport' miss the point entirely - gravity, human power output and air density haven't changed in thirty years, but patient development and advancing materials technology have closed the gap between a theoretical possibility and a genuine achievement.

I agree as well. We are hoping that for our next project, bicycles that can reach 140+ km/h, to better explain the interesting technical aspects of the challenge, why we find it so fascinating, and what other teams in the world are doing to compete. I have 3 videos on the Aerovelo channel explaining some of the technical aspects of going so fast on human power, and I will put more out as soon as I am done my degree and have more time.

@Bpbrah Natrash Oh good, let's hear your expert analysis. I am very keen to hear about your understanding of cadence, power, thresholds, muscular endurance and angular momentum.

The most obvious conclusion upon viewing this video is that birds are truly remarkable creatures. Picture the body of a bird in place of the bicyclist in this video and note the huge surface area taken up by the four rotors. That there is the proof. Even when you consider non-dimensional parameters. For instance, a hummingbird is exceedingly smaller than a human. But aren't there even very large birds that can fly vertically upwards for periods much longer than a minute? And of course this is a helicopter, not a rigid wing aircraft like the one McCready built and which was successfully flown by its human power plant across the English Channel. My advice is, Humans: don't even think about human powered helicopters/drones. You can be much better rewarded by focusing on human powered fixed wing aircraft.

RU-vid video: we made a research project that shows you can, in fact, hover solely on human power RU-vid commenters with an engineering degree from Costco: this isn't practical, put a gasoline engine on it and make it 7 feet wide and make it glide and make it have a parachute and an ejection seat and make it hover like a flying delorean. And cover it with a full metal jacket. And then i will still not be interested because it will be expensive, noisy and mostly because i have no idea how to fly.

Such appropriate nickname, what you say it is true but you have missed the point. Yes, they never intended to operate it as a transportation, they built it to barely achieve needed goals and win F..prize, but they are those who bullcraping about how it is great, how they made a engineering miracle, a marvel ...... c´mon guys, you won a prize, be happy but do you really need to shit so much? I know it is all just selfcommercial but do it really need to be so shameless? Again it refuse to show comment below so I will copy it here: TO nobrain: I am not so jeallous but I cant stand so much shameles lies and bullcraping and if that does not deserve hate then I really do not know what does. If that is ok for you I really do not understand your criteria but you have that right. I do not negate that they achieved goal, ok they won a prize, but do they really need to glorify a crap, and what is more tragic is that people dont see it. Are you all so blind, or do not posses ability of logical thinking to see what they really built, instead all comments are like omg it flies, its a miracle, just showing how much knowledge you have about the theme. But to say that they nailed it is at least ridiculous.Nailing a goal would be if theiy flew 5 min of needed 1 min, and not 1min and, what, 4 sec or so, and if they flew maybe 4 or 10 meters of needed 3, and not 3,1 or something like that. And that what it stood unanswered for the recent "high tech" 30 years does not mean that it was a hell of a challenge but that no one who would be competent to answer it either didnt know about it (I found about it this winter of this "long" 30 years) or they simply didnt give a fu... about it because they saw that it do not have some practical use. So who was in challenge, some high school pupils, some students, some exibitionists and some charlatans, and in the end in this long 30 years someone have to got lucky. That is only thing they should glorify, a sheer luck. That is just truth, and if you or someone else cant face it there is no problem in truth but somewhere else.

zdravko dren Engineering solutions are usually measured by meeting the goals. They "barely achieved" because this was a hell of a challenge that stood unanswered for the recent high tech 30 years. Why you so jeallous? And no, I'm not related to them. I'm just here wasting my time against YT hate comments.

nobrainQQ Well said. "I'm just here wasting my time against YT hate comments" - yes, and what a pity that these moronic unthinking hateful fools speak the garbage that is in their minds and waste the time and effort of rational people like you and me.

nobrainQQ The only thing wrong with this is the hideous loud music. Why people have an obsession with ruining perfectly good videos with such intrusive junk I will never know.

LaurieWilliams5066 agree

sustaining 1000 watts for a minute is a fucking achievement. if that's true this guy is a biking god. i have very strong legs and in the gym i could only max the stationary bike's watt things for like 15 seconds before dying and not being able to stand up for the next hour. and it peaks at 750w (i was probably doing more than that though)

he cant do 1kW per 1 minute. He can do it for shorter times, and he can break the helicopter with his peak power. For 1 minute, he had to do a bit more than 750W

I wonder how much it is the propeller efficiency,

Yes, I believe he had to do greater than 1000 watts to get the height required then could relax :-) for the rest of the time (at least above 750W).

@everyone, hey how do I explain that the ends of a propeller produces more thrust than the area close to the mid point?

Lol the design looks rudimentary but the material used in this thing is the pinnacle of human technology!

@@stc2828 Looks can be deceiving. I can only imagine just how long it took to design that, being able to support him and it's self, transfer the energy from the peddles to each rotter evenly, and being so incredibly light. There is nothing simple about the design, every single inch from the airfoil shape, support structure, and guide wire runs, must have been gone over and redesigned a few times to optimize everything.

@@randomguy3281 There is no way to make anything close to this with 16th-century sticks and strings.

@@stc2828 A paper airplane is a simple design, this definitely isn't. I agree with your point about styrofoam, superglue, and carbon fiber being miracles of our modern age, though.

*Da Vinky?* O_O

k

huge blades... can support weight at low speed..

@@0neofthegreatest start it at 100 ft above the ground coward

you sir go up !

It's literally the first time a human has achieved flight without a motor or wind. It's an incredible achievement. This kind of turns us into birds :D

​@@martinn.6082not the first time. Human powered forward flight has been a thing for a long time. This is the first human powered hovering, which is impressive nonetheless.

@@MrPilotStunts really? With what apparatus? I'm not talking about gliding or using a parachute, but actual flight from pure human power.

@@martinn.6082heaps of examples. Look into the Gossamer Condor, Condor 2 and Albatross for starters.

@@martinn.6082 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human-powered_aircraft did you bother googling?

I don't really think it was meant to be practical, just one of those "do it because we can" type of things, testing the realm of engineering possibilities.

Soulja Boy thats what I said

leviterande Awesome job!

I think you mean a man-POWERED helicopter. I'm pretty sure the man-made helicopter happened a long time ago, lol.

+Dr. Spectre There is no actual practical application. The who point of this project was something else. In theory a self-propelled helicopter was feasible to build, but nearly impossible - it took 33 years in the end. What building one proofs, is that trough engineer and little steeps we can slowly reduce the gap between something being theoretically possible and actually building it. This helicopter is a symbol of human perseverance and creativity

Saral Thakur He was not a professional cyclist. A real pro can put out more power, longer.

surpasslimits So you could put out more wattage? He may not be a big pro but his foot position shows its not his first rodeo. Anyone who knows anything about cycling could tell you that.

surpasslimits hey,that's even more awesome. :D

Gordon Hale Anyone who knows anything about cycling could tell you this guy is not a professional cyclist.

+Johnny Boston, as I said he may not be a big pro with all the popular sponsors but his foot positioning and the fact he can pedal that larger than normal front ring would be a clue he's been riding for some time. I've seen my share of talented local pro, semi pro and expert level riders and racers.

Really missed the opportunity to play Atlas Rise by Metallica

I was about to reply to a 7 year old comment, damn RU-vid got old.

+Harry Balzak Yea, go travel by it around the world. Lets say vacation on other side of the world,. Would you get there and back in 2 weeks?

Linus Magnus Dingus says, what?

Harry Balzak Pingus did his work.

+Linus Magnus most efficient, not fastest

***** Nope. How much resources would you need to go round the world trip with bycicle? Most efficient is plane. But for short distances yes I agree.

NSPcrazY112 The angular speed is low, but the baldes are very very long, and the linear speed at the extremities is very very high! Moreover, blades are very efficient when the vehicle is low on the ground, beacuse they're pushing air against the ground and not against some other air :)

+NSPcrazY112 Same principle as computer fans. Larger ones can spin slower to move the same amount of air as smaller faster spinning ones.

+NSPcrazY112 "SO slowly"? - compared with WHAT? Let's recall what they taught us in high school: you may produce the same force (lift) by throwing every second small mass of air at high speed (by using small but fast propeller) or big mass - proportionally slowly. In any case the thrown air "steals" some energy in form of kinetic energy of the jet, and proving the same force a light quick jet steals more energy than a massive but slow one. Thus a wide slow jet is more economical than a compact&fast.

Yuriy Deynekin The point of quoting someone is to repeat what they said. I never put emphasis on, 'so'. Compared to a regular helicopter, what else? I dropped out of high school & while I probably do have this knowledge somewhere, I likely forgot lt because I don't need lt. I've only ever flown gas-powered helicopters.

would kinda defeat the purpose of "man powered"

They could make fuel out of a man.

SOYLENT GAS IS PEOPLE

The whole point of that was to proof, that a man powered helicopter is possible.

why not make a helicopter powered by pidgins instead now THAT would be impressive

It's not

was thinking the propellers were not going even close to the speed ot needed.

you don't need much speed, if you have the right wing size and profile. The whole construction including the "pilot" only weighs 130 kg or 286,601 lb.

They won 250,000 dollars with this thing. Pretty sure its not fake.

it's a joke..... flew higher over your heads than this helicopter did to the supporting staff.

Seriously?

So? Flight is flight, how long was the first plane flight? 37 metres.

its for Science, you know, research and studies?

Mary Jane i love how the joke flew right over everyones heads. did nobody click read more?