Hello Tommy Cookers.
“well the PatTilt looks less dangerous and more convincing than the PatFlyer
and less dangerous than jet jobs that poorly segregate commanded tilting of the lift vector from uncommanded tilting
on Sunday my TV showed a UK multi jet flyer - the creator flew at 3' and said below 500' was a death zone (parachutewise)
his footage of transition to high speed looked very dangerous
he does gym work for strength - having 100 lb engine thrust per arm
consumption 1 gallon/minute
hovers upright at 3' (ground effect ?) with arms inclined - arms by sides and he is a 300 lb thrust 'human rocket'
(TV also showed the newly rebuilt Bluebird K7 - that did an uncommanded transition 50+ years ago)”
If I had to justify the 440,000 USD price of the Browning Daedalus Fly Pack, I would say that it is extremely expensive to prevent people from buying it (and be killed flying with it).
it requires a powerful pilot and a lot of continuous effort from the pilot,
it has a very small final speed,
it has a very limited range and duration,
it is a unique design and a very bad one.
If you compare it to Zapata’s FlyBoard-Air, it is like comparing the day with the night:
Without noticeable effort, Zapata literally dances in the air. He makes all kinds of acrobatics. He takes-off and lands confidently and safely.
The same if you compare Browning’s Deadalus with the JB11 of Mayman
Quote from https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech ... ion-jb-10/
“It’s like a Segway, Mayman explains.
If you want to go forward, you just lean forward.
If you want to stop, you just lean back.
It’s incredibly simple.
If you wanted to fly a helicopter, you’d need 150 hours of training — but with this, you can learn everything you need to know in about 3 hours.”
End of Quote
According Mayman’s experience on training “ordinary people” to fly with his JB10 JetPack,
some 3 hours of tethered tests / training is considered adequate before the initial low height free tests above water.
The pilot can fly at small height over the sea (or over a lake) for as long as it takes to get familiar and confident.
Only when the trained pilot feels ready, the pilot can take-off to the sky.
According Mayman, flying with his JB-10 is intuitive and easy: it is as easy and as intuitive as bicycling.
A motorcycle rider is not necessarily safer than a pilot flying with a JB-11: the one has all three dimensions to escape from a collision, the other has from one to none.
So, don’t start with the worst of the kind.
Start with the best of the kind (Zapata for now), i.e. with the state-of-the-art, and write down the weaknesses you see.
the extreme noise is a big issue,
the extreme fuel consumption and emissions is a big issue,
the extremely short range and small flight duration is an issue,
the extreme price is also an issue.
But the controllability is not an issue, neither for Zapata, nor for Mayman.
Is the OSPREY V22 a really safe airplane / helicopter?
Quote from the submission of the PORTABLE FLYER to the GoFly BOEING contest (more at http://www.pattakon.com/GoFly/DTR_1.pdf
Two Independent power units
Each engine driving its two counter-rotating propellers comprises a complete / independent / autonomous and perfectly balanced propulsion unit.
Each engine, alone, is capable (driving its two counter-rotating propellers) to power the PORTABLE FLYER.
This makes the safety of the PORTABLE FLYER during a vertical take off / landing better than the famous V-22 Osprey of Bell-Boeing wherein a malfunction of the transmission, or a broken / destroyed wing of the one rotor, equals to a crash.
In comparison, a fallen apart propeller or a destroyed engine will not cause an accident or a crash of the PORTABLE FLYER, because the other engine-propeller-set can operate independently and is capable, alone, for a safe landing.
Even in the case both engines of the PORTABLE FLYER fail (or run out of fuel), there is still the option of the parachutes into the (fixed on the frame pipes) spinners for a safe landing.
. . .
Take-off, landing, hovering and cruising The stability and the controllability at vertical take-off, landing and hovering of the PORTABLE FLYER have no reason to be worse than in the GEN-H-4:
The PORTABLE FLYER looks like a symmetrical compact GEN-H-4, and can fly like the GEN-H-4
. . .
Another quite relevant demonstration is the youtube video at
wherein a GEN-H-4 ultralight helicopter having two contra-rotating-fixed-pitch-rotors is perfectly controlled by the pilot pure-mechanically (the pilot displaces the center of gravity relative to the rotation axis of the two rotors).
The stability of the above GEN-H-4 Flyer at the fast take-off (14’’ to 18’’ of the video) is remarkable.
At hovering some 30ft / 10m above the ground, the stability is excellent; this excellent stability is achieved without any noticeable effort from the pilot: From 1:02 to 1:15 of the video the pilot of the GEN-H-4 looks around calmly, as if he is seating in a chair in the veranda of his 4th floor apartment.
He seems so relaxed that if he had a newspaper with him, he would read the news, too.
For comparison, in the
youtube video it is shown the vertical take off and the vertical landing of the high-tech, no budget, OSPREY V22 of Bell Boeing.
The variable pitch rotors and the numerous electronic control systems cannot hide the stability issues (from 7’’ to 17’’ (take off) and then from 1’:05’’ to 1’:25’’ (landing)). It reminds a fat cow trying to break-dance.
The oscillations of the OSPREY V22 are not harmless.
The catastrophe shown in the
video is the outcome of over-corrected oscillations about the long axis of the OSPREY. The simple mechanical control of the GEN-H-4 (i.e. the displacement of a lever) and the human brain (the control unit) appear far superior and safer.”
End of Quote
The BOEING (GoFly) contest should ask for something better than the state-of-the-art FlyBoard-Air of Zapata (in terms of noise, of mileage, of range and of cost, because in the rest, the FlyBoard-Air looks perfect).