P. 1
HPHCBooklet

HPHCBooklet

|Views: 62|Likes:

More info:

Published by: Chandresh Zinzuwadia on Jun 23, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

06/24/2011

pdf

text

original

The Vertical Flight Society

AHS

INTERNATIONAL

217 N. Washington Street, Alexandria, Virllinia 22314-2538 Phone (703) 684-6777; Fax (703) 73:1-\1279 E-Mail: staf{®Vtol.org; Wpbsite: www.vtol.org

Human Powered Helicopter Competition Coordinator
Mr. Matthew 1. Tarascio Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. Email: mjtarascio@sikorsky.com

.,Sikorsky O
Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation·

A United Technologies Company

6900 Main Street· Stratford, Conn. 06615· www.sikorsky.corn

Prize in Human-Powered Helicopter Contest Rises
to $250,000 Thanks to Sikorsky Aircraft Pledge
STRATFORD, Conn., Aug. 27, 2009 - Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. has increased its pledge to provide $250,000 in prize money for the Igor I. Sikorsky Human-Powered Helicopter Competition. Sikorsky previously had pledged $20,000 in prize money for whomever could win the competition by achieving the engineering feat. Sikorsky is a subsidiary of United Technologies Corp. (NYSE: UTX).

The competition, created by the American Helicopter Society International, challenges engineers to develop a human-powered helicopter that can reach an altitude of at least three meters during a hover lasting 60 seconds. No one has accomplished this feat yet. The official world record is held by Professor Akira Naito of Nihon University in Japan, with an altitude of 0.2 meters and flight duration of l' 9.46 seconds. Sikorsky.Aircraft informed AHS International at its annual forum in May that the company would increase its pledged contribution, which AHS would award to the competition winner.

"Igor Sikorsky, founder of Sikorsky Aircraft, believed that individuals provide the spark that moves mankind ahead. This competition continues his legacy by inspiring ingenuity in the next generation of engineers who will design our industry's future," said Mark Miller, Vice President of Research and

Engineering at Sikorsky Aircraft. "Our company is built on innovation. 'We believe strongly in the power of challenge."

More information about the competition is available from the American Helicopter Society at 703-684-6777.

Sikorsky Aircraft Corp., based in Stratford, Connecticut, USA, is a world leader in helicopter design, manufacture and service. United Technologies Corp., based in Hartford, Conn., provides a broad range of high technology products and support services to the aerospace and building systems industries.

###

Sikorsky media contacts: Paul Jackson Phone: 860-614-3899 Paul.Jackson@sikorsky.com Marianne Heffernan Phone: 203-386-4373 mheffernan@sikorsky.com

Sikorsky Aircraft Corp.3 All questions regarding the world record attempt will be governed by the sporting code of the FAI and rest exclusively with the NAC. REGULA TIONS I.S. the national representative of the Federation Aeronautique Internationale (FAI). the national representative of the FAI is the National Aeronautic Association (NAA). This competition shall be conducted under the following regulations and conditions laid down by the Human-Powered helicopter Committee of AHS International and shall be witnessed by the National Aero Club (NAC). General 1. currency.000. eligibility of all entrant. the decision of the AHS is final. registration and airworthiness certification will not be required for machines built for this competition on the assumption that all flights will be limited to close proximity to the ground and will generate no interference with air commerce. 2. .. to hold adequate insurance coverage for all third party risks and to take every precaution against injury to people and damage to property.00 is offered by AHS International by its sponsor.2 Additionally. 3. an attempt will be registered with the Federation Aeronautique Internationale (FAI) as a World Record for Human-Powered Helicopter Flight duration. Eligibility 3.000 in U. is international and is open to individuals or teams from any part of the 3.A.S. for a successful controlled flight of a human-powered helicopter.1 The competition world. or any other matter relating to the AHS prize. Prize The AHS Prize is $250. in the United States of America. 3. crew or aircraft under the regulations. wi II observe their own national flying and insurance regulations. during trials. Sikorsky Human-Powered Helicopter Competition A prize of$250. In the United States. It is expected that competitors in countries other than the U.The Vertical Flight Society Igor I.2 For any and all questions regarding acceptance of entries.AHS international . All intending entrants are strongly advised.1 The prize will be awarded by the AHS to the entrant who first fulfills the conditions 1. NOTE: The AHS has been advised by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) that. pilot.

4.

Conditions of Entry 4.1 Aircraft 4.1.1 The machine shall be a heavier-than-air gases shall be prohibited. machine. The use of lighter-than-air

4.1.2 The machine shall be a rotary wing configuration capable of vertical takeoff and landing in stil I air, and at least one member of the crew shall be non-rotating. 4.1.3 The machine shall be powere and controlled by the crew during the entire flight, including accelerating the rotor up to takeoff speed. 4.1 .4 No devices for storing energy either for takeoff or for use in fl ight shall be permitted. Rotating aerodynamic components, such as rotor blades, used for lift and/or control are exempt from consideration as energy storing devices. 4.1.5 No part of the machine shall be jettisoned spin-up and takeoff. 4.2 Crew 4.2.1 The crew shall be those persons in the machine during takeoff and flight, and there shall be no limit set to their number. 4.2.2 No member of the crew shall be permitted to leave or enter the aircraft at any time during takeoff or fl ight. 4.2.3 No drugs or stimulants shall be used by any member of the crew. An assurance must be given to the official observers at the time of the attempt that this requirement has been met. 4.2.4 Up to t\VOhandlers or ground crew shal I be permitted to assist in stabi Iizing the machine during takeoff and landing, but in such a manner that they do not assist in accelerating or decelerating any part of the machine. 4.3 Ground Conditions 4.3.1 All attempts, which shall include the takeoff, shall be made over approximately level ground (i.e., with a slope not exceeding I in 100 in any direction). 4.3.2 A II attempts shall be made in still air, which shall be defined as a wind not exceeding a mean speed of approximately one meter per second (3.1 kilometers per hour, 2.237 statute miles per hour, 1.5 nautical miles per hour) over the period of flight. 4.4 Flight Requirements 4.4.1 The flight requirements shall consist of hovering for one minute while maintaining flight within a l O-meter square. During this time, the lowest part of the machine shall exceed momentarily 3 meters above the ground. during the flight including the rotor

2

4.4.2 The machine shall be in continuous flight from takeoff to landing, and at no time during the flight shall any part of the machine touch the ground. 4.4.3 A reference point on the non-rotating part of the machine will be established as a means whereby the observers can judge that the machine stayed within the confines of the I O-meter square. 4.4.4 The one minute hovering time and the momentary achievement of 3 meters altitude is required to win the AHS prize. (However, the FAI 1980 regulations specify that only the duration of the flight and a momentary achievement of 3 meters altitude will be recorded for the F AI world record attempt, making it possible to ach ieve a world record without satisfying the AHS prize requirements.) 4.5 Observation Every attempt shall be observed by the NAC or by any persons authorized by them to act as observers. It may take place in the competitor's own country if it is affiliated with the FAI. In a country not so, it could be advantageous to conduct the flight in a neighboring country which is so affiliated. 5.

Applications

for Entry
217 N.

5.1 Entry forms shall be obtained from and returned to AHS International, Washington Street, Alexandria, VA 22314-2538, USA, (703) 684-6777. 5.2 The entry fee shall be U.S. $15.00 (made payable to AHS International). 5.3 Each entry form shall contain an application attempt. for official observation

of the competitor's

5.4 The entrant shall undertake to abide by the conditions for official observation as set out on the entry form and application for official observation and shall undertake to defray all expenses incurred in connection with the official observation of the attempt. 5.5 The following fees and sharges are made by the NAA for record attempts in Class I, Human-Powered Aircraft. All attempts shall be for national and international records. 5.6 Final notice of the proposed time and place of the attempt requiring official observation may, if so desired, be sent to the AI-IS later than the entry form. It must in all cases be received at least thirty days before the proposed date of the attempt. Th is time is required by the NAC (the NAA in the U.S.) to arrange for official observation. Applications will be considered in order of receipt. 5.7 Membership in the appropriate NAC and an FAI Sporting License is required for all crew members taking part in this competition. Application forms may be obtained from the NAC or AHS. For this competition, a pilot's license is not required.

3

6.

General Conditions 6.1. Indemnity
The entrant must execute, on behalf of himself, his crew, representatives or employees, the indemnity agreement found on page 5 to indemn ify AHS, the NAC and the FAI against any claims.

6.2. Revision of Regulations 6.2.1 These regulations shall remain in force until such time as the AHS considers necessary to amend them, or the prize has been won. 6.2.2
AHS International reserves the right to add to, amend or omit any of these regulations and to issue supplementary regulations. it

6.3. Interpretation

of Regulations

The interpretation of these regulations or any of the regulations hereafter issued rest entirely with AHS International. The entrant shall be solely responsible to the official observer for due observance of these regulations and shall be the person with whom the official observers will deal in respect thereof, or any other questions arising out of this competition.

4

and servicing of all aircraft and all equipment used for flight. officers. of Virginia. 5. 4. maintenance. members. sponsors a human-powered helicopter competition and ______ (the Competitor) is attempting to win this competition with a flight on approximately _______ (insert date). There is to be no combustible type involved in the flight or in or near the flight area. Executed this __ day of ___J 20~. This agreement constitutes the entire indemnity agreement made between the parties and may not be amended except by a writing signed by the Competitor and an authorized representative of AHS. Competitor shall be responsible for the safety and protection of all persons in the flight area and shall provide AHS a list of all personnel involved in conducting the flight. Competitor shall be responsible for design. agents and employees harmless from any and all claims. demands or causes of action arrive out of Competitors' record attempt. the American Helicopter Society International (AHS). AHS and the Competitor do hereby agree as follows: 1. Bystanders and others not members of the flight crew shall be required to remain at least 100 feet from the aircraft at all times while the rotors are engaged and turning. a non-profit organization. Operator shall indemnify and hold AHS and its directors. 2. including but not limited to its conduct of flight operations as set forth in paragraphs one and two of this agreement. Competitor: AHS: Its Its~ 5 .AHS HUMAN-POWERED HELICOPTER COMPETITION INDEMNITY AGREEMENT Whereas. This agreement shall be governed by the laws of the Commonwealth excluding its conflict of law rules. fuel of any 3.

{70J) iJY·927~ E-:-'~1aiL I.\'tol.vtot.. Alexandria. SIKORSKY AHS International HUMAN-POWERED HELICOPTER ENTRY FORM COMPETITION Entrant Information (please type or print clearly): Name: -------------------------------------------------------------------------Address: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Telephone Number: Affiliation (if any): Flight Crew Information 1. \V(l5hillgl~1II Street.rlfr"i!. www.nrg ~ IGOR I.3. Name: Address: Details of Attempt {if known) Place of Attempt: City Date of Attempt: -over7 _ State/Province Country __ . Fiu. Name: ---------------------------------------------------------------------Address: .wobsne.AHS INTERNATIONAL Tile I'ert ira! FUg/1t Society 117 X. Name: ----------------------------------------------------------------------Address: __ 2.orgl. Virginia 2211-l·25JR Phone (7HJ) ~+-6777.

and agree to abide by them including: • • Indemnifying the AHS. Give name and markings. and National Organization Representing FAI: •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• r ] have read the "Regulations & Conditions" for the $250. NAC and FAI.000. suggested reference point for use by observer. -------- Fee Paid ------- 8 . if any.00 (U. Abiding by AHS International's interpretation • of the regulations and conditions.S. Signed Date AHS Use Ollly Below This Line Entry No. date November 1992. A $15.00 AHS International Human-Powered Helicopter Competition. and the submission of the flight crew to tests if The prohibition of the use of drugs and stimulants requested by the official observers. _ Date Rec 'd.Description of Helicopter (if available) Provide on a separate sheet. currency) fee must be enclosed. Include a sketch or photograph.

: .Private· of the pilot in command are as follows: Date: Issued: Commertial • ATI" (ciIde ltighest) Ratings: Age. it under 21 Date ot Llst MediCl!: Oass of MediC1l.J. under IFR conditions? (YIN) _ .ttic!e: Manufac:rurer Registration ---------------------Wt (including Gross _ fuel & crew) ' -----_ _ E. 10C:lIio~ and pertinent details): record attempt (describe Desired starting date of 90 day sanaioa: ~~e Model __ Record category: :{. Total Fligbt Haws· AU Categories: IFR. POW"er: _ :/I and designation: The: aeronauncal skills and background FAA License #: Student . Sporting Ucccse? (YiN) _ _ _ _ Will any part of thi:s record attempt be conduaed. _~ Hours In AiraaftIV erude Type Being Used. Date of Last Bight Revicw {BFR)•:.'lCTION The undersigned hereby applies far a sanction [0 make [he following described stating nature of record attempt. World National _ (circ:!c: one) AiIc:raftlve:..gine:(s): Manufacturer.~ATIONAL AERONAUTIC ASSOCIATION APPUCATION FOR A SA.::J.

Arlington VA 22209 IA.l.unn NAA.tion Aerenauuque [nternauonak. The sponsor and pilot further incurred . lIla h= slWJ immule :my SUIt or acncn at law or in eqUIty ag. or i~ otIia:n. :rr under ~ge [8. J~ts. 1815 N. directors and =ployea [roll!. Jgenu. per the schedule auacned.IAA ~ Jnd [eo conneerec \llillt tills =rd lttCII]JI. lasso or actiom tbat :nay h=fter be Drought again:ll suca ~Ieo by any party as Sponsor: (at:idr=) Pilot: I (tilk) This space far NAA use only Sanction Period of 90 days Approved.o any coarestanr Juemplln!!: the reecrc.\ a result a result of tllis n:cort1 attempt. or damages = avec to ind=lllfy of claims.ltion requested lia:mc: ana be a =bc:r o( NAA.allll sponsor or pilot may hereauer acquire raallng to or utsing out of this record altemp!.. dcuandl. or employ= by reason oC lIlY d. _ -------_ Return to NAA. or other damages lO sponsor. or to olner penon or ~1lS t or to pl'Opaty or born. direc.1$ hold 111 FA! sporting tbe 3. Suite 700. puot nor sponsor's or "tlOI'S legal ~rcscntaUV'C5. Fort Meyer Dr. indudin!!: sancucn aIId ~uon .uUiall is required.ol3.lIId its oillCC3.l ~ [Qc:m~ 5boukl ll.s J!!:l'=cnl to sancuon tills =rt1 auempt. Starts: Ends: TotallSanction fee: S.lIId any officUi o~ apem. dcuh.c::s inCllrl'ed. JJCl1u.dditi01U.. NOle thai all oUicW CIIembers be liRed oa a !iCpU2le sbeet o{ papa""th oC tile ~ 0:1. . din:ctors or em]JJoye::s ~h:ill be held liable ~or :ury occurrence in ccnaeeuon wun tbe ~n1 JlICllP' wttich Ill.2 J/VtIe und=Land that the sponsor !iUed below IS resporasbte tor all :-.e=. the signature of a parenl or gu. Sponsor 3nd pilot covenants that nenher sponsor. [}We funner =uiy WI tt1is ~rd attempt WIll be conducted in accoroancc WIth t!le ~lions of the Fo:1er.UDC intorn:t. In consideranon oC NAA. llle 3ponsor JaG pllol J~ tlut nelllc:t ~AA nor my oC its officers..ay result in inlury. _ Date approved.'. lSSigns. NAA . 1'1101..mc1 the National ~naulic Association. lIlY ape=.!.

Background Information on Previous Human Powered Helicopter Competition Attempts .

. ~~ ~~ ~ ~ I.0 ~ ~ ~ ~ = .. en .() o o N Q) C :::J (/) -:l (jj CO '- :::J o CO 'E o c 0 == U "N a ~ o ... t/) U I CL o ::::s I ~ LL a: == ~ ~u a a -e ~ ..~ :..~ •~ .. CD .... \. ::::s s::::: CD Q..:.CD E U) U) Q) ..J: 00. ca . «o •• o s::::: CD .)~ o ~~ ~ ~... .t:J a .....- N ...... '0 . s::::: e ca CD CD t/) ::::s == == -< = e = ca >.) ~l o "t:J t/) ...

.... I I I CL ~ LL a: • . "o ~ o Q) \. Q) o U5 >- CO '5 >o ro c o o o +'" a...{) o C\J C ::J """? C/) ::l .C\J T"- o C\J I.

.-o M I.{) o N Q) o C :J J (j) en . I ~ LL a: • • .N '+- ._ Ci:l a.. o c ::J '2 o o o I 0.

. o m '5 "- o I o o.) c ro "- ::J o . I 2 LL 0: • • ......io C\I o o a.> ::J J (/) c if.

'0 1..0 . '6 .._ o I I 0._ o o ro c o ::2: LL a: A • • .

~'" ... I I o ~ LJ.:' • • • . 1 o a. ::I....... :.... J: a.._ "c ''2 ro 0 o ••..IJ7 : <0 . o .'-. ~ o ~ ._ .S? r-- / I •• r... (J) . 0::: a.. - :' J: " ~ y ...

c:: . .. I. 5:"' 0 ::.. •• 1J ~ CI) :J a.~ ~ § S: ~~ i:i"'...i ~ e-~ ... .. .. CI) .: c: :J 1J ~ CI) .i:::: :I... I o ~ LL [[ "_ Q) . '~ ~ c. :::: :..I A -....I A CO -..- LO o o N OJ C :J --.I A ~ ~ VJ c- > . o ....._ 1J e cr::...i:::: CO ..:t::: -a ..S . ""<::....".. ~ ofo...9 "- ~ Q) q:: CO 0 ". .. 0 :I.~ -.J Q) .Q -.:~ ''::..L:. CO @ 'i::: lI._ c.. E: cu (]) <::: ""<::.g ~ E: ~ 0 > ..._ .~ . .... <::.~ s:::: • :::> • e . -+-.. 2 :::: \:: ~ ~ ""<::.._ E: '_ O:l Q <.Q) 0 c: en ". a.N .::::: ~ "'... 0 J: J: 0 "'C 0 0 :I....:) M "" __ ..9~ ~ :J ~ . if) (0 :J U5 '- (0 o 'E o I c o o. c: c: v <::: :::: ~ :§ .. :::: C) "I- Oo (]) .

... o I o o ~ u... CC lCJ t: C 0 c: E.. en « • .. ~" <:J . !:: 0 § 0 0 ~ "" '" :... 0 s ~ ..~ "'::. ~ ~ '" "ts.. 0 lCJ ~ I:l::. I 0. ~ "" k: .. a..N .. Oi !?.. -"" u ~.-lCJ . 1U o c: 1U '6 . <:J "" ~ o N "0 =i <lJ ~ r. '0 00 L!) o N o Q) :::J J c: en :::J U5 .....

. ::2: L..J. 0: CO :r.. Q) o e Q) • . '0 en LO o o Q) """') C\I C ::J (/) U5 '- ro o ::J o I I ro c 'E o o c....C\I .

... '0 o .... I c o :2 LL ([ o • • .... N o ()) io o C ::J J (f) N U5 "- iU ::J ~ '2 o I c.

......0>. o C') (f) N . o > C CO .DE roo-. ..:...(J '" :0 0....t a: o o .0 ""<..:...0.e . "'0 c o C....I- U:l '- 1U :J 1U > ::l "'0 (f) '2 o o o c o o Q_ o ~ I I :2: LL _(f) ~Q) ·0 C'? :.. ~ NO ....tf'-..:: .) Q) (f) E co o o :::J J f/) N ill -. N • .

1989. (Oh yes. the calm day is usually obtained indoors.nasa. and a calm day and give it a try. yes it is a tough problem to whip.1 seconds later in 1994. driving a single shaft."ND the aircraft was stuck "in ground effect. First. Multiple "engines" would be acceptable however. Second. In fact. a design by Professor Akira Naito (the Yuri I) hovered first for 6 seconds on December 6. at Nihon University in Japan. AHS International From: "Robert J. and later again for 24 seconds in a public demonstration at a human powered flight conference in Seattle. and the blade attachment to the rotor hub has varied from fully articulated.1 seconds but reached only a few inches of altitude. (USA) flew Da Vinci III for 7. a team from California Polytechnic State University-San Luis Obispo. Washington. Neither craft came close to meeting the Sikorsky competition requirements of a one-minute flight while reaching an altitude of 3 meters sometime during the flight. Huston" <r.gov> "Max Glaskin" <max@pavilion. The "engine" must be a very light weight world class athlete.j. hovered for 19. 1993. substantially more power would be required to climb out of ground effect.co. to "hingeless. on December 10. The rules do indicate that one crewmember must be non-rotating. likely a sprinter able to give "his" all for slightly more than the 60 seconds of hover required to satisfy the Sikorsky competition rules.. number of rotors from one to four. First.huston@larc. the Sikorsky competition requires the aircraft to stay within a lOx 10 meter square which suggests that the pilot will need to control the vehicle. which can recirculate the wake and may give the pilot some problems staying in one spot. the Helios team of Canadians have experimentally demonstrated that the optimum number of engines. Regarding the rotor. 2000 6:00 Pivl Re: Human powered helicopter To: Cc: Sent: Subject: Max I'll give your questions a go.Page 10f6 Kim Smith..uk> <Kim@vtol. The problem appears to be one of coordination such that one plus one is less than two. an aerodynamically efficient rotor. Successful demonstrations have been made with blade numbers from one to eight. So far. Just get a good athlete. helicopter engineering has offered hundreds of solutions for conventionally powered aircraft.) Neither the Da Vinci III nor the Yuri I had any vehicle controls. The experience to date indicates that the two HPH designs flown were absorbing nearly all of the human power available A." Sometimes counter-rotating multiple 12/13/00 . is one human. December 10. a light structure. Regarding the enormity of the challenge of "human powered helicopter" (HPH) flight.org> Sunday. it looks like a simple problem." That is. two human powered helicopters have actually flown.

a coaxial machine has one of the rotors considerable smaller than the other. Unfortunately. when at rest on the ground. (The objective in any case is to have the torque of multiple rotors balance each other. hence eliminating the need for an anti-torque rotor.Page 2 of6 rotors are arranged side-by-side. before concluding that the quad rotor configuration (as used in the Yuri I) was the most efficient. the design data that I last received on the Canadian Helios is for a counter-rotating coaxial rotor configuration with the diameter of both two-bladed rotors at 115 feet (-35 meters). or circled in a quad configuration. most of the analysis tools used by the helicopter industry are not validated for the operating conditions expected for a human powered helicopter. The earlier Da Vinci III was a two-bladed rotor with rotor torque provided by a propeller at the tip of each blade. the greatest weight lifted for a given horsepower." which results from using a lightly loaded. or on a single axis described as coaxial. The rotor of a human powered helicopter operates at very low Mach and Reynolds numbers with the time between blade passage at a fixed point being. A quick look at conventional helicopter ground effect charts helps to 12/13/00 . very large rotor would give the highest "power loading. In fact. perhaps 50 times as long. Incidentally. relative to that of a conventional helicopter. because the lifting span of a HPH is so large. both the Yuri I and the Da Vinci III. Occasionally.) Each type is usually "named" by the inventor so that even similar types appear different when described. It could be inferred that the human powered helicopter would lag the human powered airplane by 30 years." Thus. hence eliminating the need for a tail rotor. Also. It should also be noted that helicopter development lagged the airplane by roughly 30+ years. are approximately one-blade chord from the ground. the rotor tip speed of a conventional helicopter is several times that of a human powered helicopter. This would result in overall vehicle dimensions of the order of 25 to 30 meters or more as illustrated by the Da Vinci III and the Yuri 1. the climb to 3 meters altitude is equivalent to converting from a ground effect machine to the low hover of a helicopter with a short landing gear. In addition. The climb maneuver required by the Sikorsky competition simply moves the rotor from operating in extreme ground effect to rotor operation in a large ground effect (even though at an interference level experienced by more conventional helicopters). The theory of vertical flight suggests that very low "disk loading. or in tandem. This likely invalidates some of the assumptions used for conventional helicopter analysis with regard to the induced flow of the rotor. slowly turning. with HPH blade Reynolds numbers predominately below a transitional Reynolds number (where the profile drag coefficient rises with a further decrease in Reynolds number) the details of the blade airfoil section are critical. All engine-powered helicopters are designed for forward flight. None of these examples give the inventor of a human powered helicopter any guidance. Professor Akira Naito experimented with these parameters over several years and with five configurations. Simple airplane technology was inadequate to make a successful helicopter. For example. The HPH only has to hover.

a ground-effect-free hover of a HPH is likely impossible. Eye balling and guestimates just won't give the minimum weight. reaching a 3 meter altitude with these aircraft would require an increase in power available from the "engine" of20 to 40 percent more than they demonstrated in their brief flights. However. the 3-meter hover requirement is a concession (by the original authors of the Sikorsky competition rules). usually a fraction of a meter. Operating a 35-meter diameter HPH at the 3+ meter height required by the Sikorsky competition is equivalent to placing the landing gear of a conventional helicopter at or below the ground. (A 25 percent growth in weight would require another 40 percent growth in diameter). and the University of Texas at Austin. California. the University de Sherbrooke. San Luis Obispo. or to an altitude of 30 to 50 meters. after the first flight of the Yuri I. is that it failed due to shock loads transmitted through the power distribution system. If the weight grows in this process. It should be noted that both Da Vinci III and Yuri I was designed with the aid of CAD tools. If either aircraft can be built lighter. In my view. the two aircraft would have to be redesigned to be larger (by what ever percent the power required grew as the aircraft rises to the 3-meter altitude) to further increase the power loading while maintaining the same structural weight.Page 3 of6 illustrate the later issue. the powers of the weight engineer! This clearly illustrates that the detailed design must be based on well-defined structural loads and moments.) Short of an available super human (drugs are prohibited by the rules). the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champain. for a HPH to take off and fly vertically free of the ground. Several universities are working this effort. for both of the two HPHs that have flown. 12/13/00 . Professor Akira Naito's work at Nihon University in Japan. the University of Michigan. it would have to rise to an altitude in excess of its lifting span. (The + in the previous sentence is the" at ground rest" height of the HPH rotor. This sounds a little like a dog chasing his tail. Even so. The "engine" was too aggressive on the pedals. the power required goes down faster than the weight. My view of the structural failure of the Yuri I. Design tools suitable for a HPH are only slowly being put into place. The magnitude ofthe ground effect. This is in addition to the previously mentioned work on the Helios at the Ecole de Technologie Superiore in Montreal. the aircraft fell apart in flight and had to be rebuilt. My own estimates of the ground effect suggest that. (Note: I have a 100 percent uncertainty in my guess.) For a human powered helicopter to be free of ground effect. and Professor William Patterson's work at California Polytechnic State University. Universities that have indicated their interest in the problem include the University of British Columbia. Oh. to the fact that while hover of a HPH in-ground-effect is hard but possible. THE 3-METER HOVER REQUIREMENT DOES NOT RAlSE THE AIRCRAFT OUT OF THE SIGNIFICAi'JT INFLUENCE OF THE GROUND.to out-of-ground effect. is likely a lOOpercent increase in hover power from in. it will take another increase in rotor diameter. based on a video of the attempted flight. the inverse is also true.

while individual professors have build an understanding of the HPH requirements. 12/13/00 . no industry or government grants money has supported any of these efforts. and Professor Naito attempted to fly a number of different configurations before his success with the quad-rotor Yuri 1. inventors are also working in Germany and China. they have the advantage of having formed a project organization. (I envy their technical start in an engineering career. They have subdivided the job into discipline areas and have qualified student volunteers working in each discipline. Aside from S individuals in the United States. They have tackled the theory of ground effect (though not validated) and should understand the issue of the mutual interference between the two rotors at different ground heights and the effect of the ground in climbing to the 3-meter hover requirement. No theory validation can occur until good scientific measurements are available. Universities have offered a couple papers on the HPH. both in deep ground effect. Remember that. Personal time and funds have supported it all. The technical skill levels of the backyard inventors are probably adequate to build an HPH but their understanding of the engineering requirements is often insufficient. pioneer inventors continue to work on concepts. VA in 2000. it was Da Vinci THE THIRD that flew first. However. Since the Sikorsky competition started in 1980. The Helios group at Montreal did a public briefing at the American Helicopter Society Forum held in Montreal in 1999 and put up a display in the exhibit hall at the AHS Forum in Virginia Beach. I see essentially no cooperation. They are using CAD and high strength graphite structure to keep the weight to a minimum. in fact some reluctance with most individuals in sharing even their fundamental understanding of the problem. Key data is not generally available and I believe it has not been measured. Even Igor Sikorsky first tried to design the helicopter in 1909 and was not successful until 1939-and then he could not at first fly forwards. I like their odds but I suspect they will fail with this configuration. They need a formal education in helicopter fundaments but. This actually requires precise measurements with full-scale hardware (or at least very large hardware) for an adequate range of conditions to provide benchmark design data. they would not find the answers they need. In addition. You asked specifically about Helios. As you already know. this appears to be a balanced effort with 8 universities and 10 pioneer inventors working the problem. They have included a computer controlled blade pitch scheme (and according to the rules.Page -4 of 6 To my knowledge. if they had it. must generate the power to run the computer as well as to power the rotor). the lack of continuity with students is an evident weakness. but they would then know when they have to guess. On the surface. only backwards and sideways. individuals or teams have built 17 HPH but only two have hovered. The experience they have gained should make them sought after by any smart personnel director from helicopter design organizations.) The Helios has the advantage of attempting to fly the largest rotor to date. Within academia.

a calm day and give it a try. You have my permission to use anything you want from the above dialog on the human powered helicopter. as the relevant AHS >co-ordinator. please send me a copy of it. > >1 am a freelance technology journalist writing an article for New Scientist >magazine. Sincerely: Bob Huston Human Powered Helicopter Coordinator American Helicopter Society Personal Address: 105 ILEX DRlVE Yorktown. an aerodynamically efficient rotor. I had previously retired from NASA to get away from work but even they won't completely let me go. I have tried to keep the facts straight. VA 23692 USA Note: Yorktown is where George Washington (and our own bunch of French and German troops) sent Lord Cornwallis back to England on October 19. 1781. I am preparing an article about the Helios project in Montreal and >would be grateful for a few comments from yourself. I'll try to look you up the next time I get to England and let you buy me a brew. a light structure. if you can tell the difference.Page 5 of6 The winner of the Sikorsky Human Powered Helicopter Competition will just get a good athlete. Ifany of this gets into New Scientist magazine (or any other publication). twice as Technical Chairman of the annual Forum. But he win have a lot of luck. and as a Southeast Region Vice President. I was recently asked to take over the coordinator job after having served the American Helicopter Society as Journal Editor-in-Chief for several years. PS Your questions encouraged me to put in writting a few thoughts I have carried around on this subject. For payment. --------------------end of response by Huston -------------------- >N1r Huston. (Note my e-mail address). > >I wonder if you could comment briefly on the enormity of the challenge they >have accepted? > 12113/00 . Just recognize there is a lot of my personal opinion in what I have written. I wish the Helios team a lot of luck. But I can't pass up the chance to sound off on some subject or another at any opportunity.

Page 6 of6 >Also. I'd be grateful if you could help me to put their attempt into context >..how many other bids are being made to win the Sikorsky Prize? > >1 hope you can help.uk 12113/00 ..--i.+ (0) 20 7681 1033 >max@pavilion. > >Kind regards > >Max Glaskin >AGI Journalist of the Year >11 Jew Street >Brighton >BNl IUT >United Kingdom > >Tel +44 (0) 1273 748626 >Fax .co.

.co )( . (J) s: ~ :.: o .....J . c o C/) C'IS s: .c c co • e cr: o (J) c c: o >.l CO W . o e ......w O..:W":"":""1 (l._ I'-~e') eo .!../) ....~ ~.: "1" ~ I-eo .. t\J..:.:0 WC\I I-(\J '0 .. co I.00 Q. 1-C\l1-C\l .:" I'CD 1'.O Q..J '- o :::: a> e o c C ttl a. T""" T""" - ml..l ..:...0 z o o <n <n (I) o.s:::.lC\l CO') .SI C:~ '0 W tta: s: o ....co .2 '. (l.= ".L._ <n o Ul a..CO. 0<0 e')e') .... 1.. <nO) <n E 0= .. o .(\I xm C'lSLll o .c: (I) c ~g~~ C\lU( 1.... '1. s: W a. l: US o .0 .'g I- o '" X l- o e « (l) (0 =:J ~ C3 'ii) o o o c: o o (1) Q..

- t":i _~ 1.0 .c c. . <D xeD C'? N C CD e o Q... .:_: U) °0 (1)(\1 1-00 1-1.2 s: m o 0.-C\I C")(D ('G ..- .uO ca CD ... J:: ~ o ro E ca s: o o o .:: ~ o O'l t'!I r-.CI) ca III ._..CO u.tt> ..CD o . ·C u. OJ 0) 'r-- .co OC\J (O~ ... O~ . Ctlv " c: CD a as )( Ez 0« §c.. __ ('GO) M"" Il)c:o x- l..- o C\I . ... OJ ..:: (J) C ('G C/) es c.. ::: o II) ON . r t ~ w o > Q) Cl -.\/~ I"- c:o:2 .. '0 00 CO.. ~ o Z ell c: NO 0<0 (0. ro "':-0 Q.E Q) ~~ o E C\J<D .... o .l. N -.0 e . E E o ~ I- Cf) Cl) -0 . _~ <t: J:~ aJ' (.~ C vi Ol c: . o (I) tIS e_ _g CIl ('G s::::Z C/) E a:: II) Q) o :i: w I- o o ...

. a>1ji "g- CP C Q) E0 «I E CD (Jj E..S- .cg E Gl EJ x ~ N cb c 0 ... - '0 1010 "<..1.004 ** ..t: c: C._r Or-.... C» CD .... a> CI) fJ) l. 10_ Q) en )( Or-.. N(\l - l:: . C\I ** TOTRL PAGE. 1.I --J o (I'J 0.... c:: . rII ~ C Q) 1.-t:Or-..Q -:l E ..:z: 0 "0«IS: (Jj E ~ C<... 0') en 'btU ftS .-q I-C":lLU )-eo (1)- "'E "'cg Clc: "CO .O~r-.q. a>..I:: 0- .Q) 0 . .J- ~ E l:: ~0 C -.

36.11l ~ :-0.I. achieve a collective hop by drawing 01 the flywheel energy alone. The rotor was driven by propellers at the tips of the rotors with the pilot placed under 32 O ) ~~ F12. This competition was established in 1980 and since that time several attempts have been made but no one has ever successfully completed the challenge nor collected the prize money. : la.. l4u4~u routU·1I ~. rn i:l.. b) HPHs which have been built and which are expected to fly in the near future: c) activity devoted to acquiring basic data with the potential to serve as a resource for developers.000 to he first contestant who can hover in a human powered heliopter for 60 seconds. This craft hovered for 7.3. only two have flown..~rrcu: .1 (J5 tllra ".I does the fly wheel appear to perform an energy star age role such that the aircraft coul. Human Powered Helicopter (HPH) activites fall into the following categories: a) HPHs which have flown but have not completely satisfied the Society's rules. As with the Da Vinci Ill. Professor William B.t1"_ I~t ~~Il'II~.. t. s the rotor.l seconds in December 1989.~ r . p. The first success was achieved by the Da Vinci III which was built at the California Polytechnic Institute. the pilot sits under the rotor and a flywheel is also used. Yurl·1 VERTIFLITE May/June 1997 . 311 ~~ ~$l I \I' •. This project has been pursued tena ciously by Professor Naito and Figure shows the evolution of designs tha finally produced the Yuri-I... The craft used a flywheel to smooth the input torque variation. c. I . "The Leonard Da Vinci Flies!" (Copies of this two-page article and an earlier Proceedings paper are available at AHS National Headquarters). 1 Plan and Side View or lb.Jllt . This craft has a four rotor configuration with each rotor consisting of two blades with a 10 meter diameter (33 ft).THE AHS IGOR SIKORSKY HUMAN POWERED HELICOPTER COMPETITION By Robert Sopher AHS Human Powered Helicopter Coordinator onds in March 1994 .:1 . f ltl jV. This underscores the difficulty of the competition. It shoul also be pointed out that in neither th Da Vinci III nor the Yuri.r ) LIt _) ~o r .46 sec- 'fURi 5~u bur. Figure 1 shows plan and side views of this aircraft.. . and d) interesting design concepts..13 1 2.cu. The design used a twobladed rotor with a diameter of 100 ft and the aircraft weighed 96 lbs. ~p' ut of the 17 HPHs that have been built. Patterson wrote a review of their efforts in the MardvApril1990 issue of Vertiflite (Vol. The Yuri-f hovered for 19.II.. The second successful flight was accomplished by the Yuri-I constructed at Nihon University in Japan under the direction of Professor Akira Naito. and remain in a 10 meter square during the attempt.. N offers a prize of 520. The aircraft weighs 38 kg (83 lbs). No. mornentari ly demonstrate that the aircraft can reach a height of 3 meters.a world record but the flight did not satisfy all of th requirements of the competition.:5-3 :.:n . 30-31) entitled.

O~' 3·13 X Papillon A 1988-1989 Dia_cler Blade arp. No. the total length is 50 feet and the craft weighs 62 Ibs. Parts have been fabricated in some cases and model tests have been conducted in others.3 Fig. Each rotor has a diameter of 60 ft and. The Yuri-I drifted out of the allowed 10meter square because it was too stable to be controlled in the face of strong recirculation of the rotor wake in the building where the attempt was made. Om! ~IZ ~ 1989-1990 Bladearea Wei"hl I'apillonC 1990-1991 Dia_aLer Blade area Weight Z~. Each rotor consists of a disk similar to a turbine disk around which are sixteen stub blades. after retiring from Nihon University.' 373 N I t appears that a rich source of information resides in tests conducted to support development and that a more active role by the Society in logging and helping to distribute data might help towards the HPH goal. Connecticut has fabricated and tested a coaxial helicopter. 25. John Nobile of Fairfield. much like a bicyclist. Professor Naito. Curtis Barnes of Medford. Japan HPHs at Nih 0 n 33 .2.h 1 1~6~ 25.h 1 2J. Certainly a 60 second hover should be within the reach of a controllable design and it seems that Professor Naito is near that goal.T here are several HPH projects at various stages of development. A Day Ply 1985-1986 Oia~~lcr 20. continues to direct students and professors on the development of the Yuri-II. 2 Evolution of University. by tilting the pilot's body.0. Flying attempts were made previously but these were unsuccessful for various reasons.6. Oregon has been working on a nove! two rotor vehicle over a period of several years. The rotors lie under a frame which also supports the pilot who sits at the center of the veh icle above the rotors. 43. In conversations with Professor Naito. Professor Naito has developed an innovative way Val.eler(t) Blade area Weight 10. Flying attempts were made in 1994 and on one flight lift-off was achieved and the control system was reportedly effective.3_' 31( K : YUR r 1993Cia.0m' 412 <~ Pap i Hon B Diu!ller 19. Several developers have relied on model tests to acquire basic data. according to its creator. the aircraft has a unique control system which he is keeping under wraps.Z~ Rladcarra Weil. 35. Each rotor has a diameter of 23 feet. but he must be addressing the control problem.a lie iy. Control is achieved. he has not revealed how this craft will be different from its predecessor. 19.O. but only a few are expected to fly in the near future.

ne possible way for the Society to take a more active role in stimulating HPH progress would be to convene a workshop. O VERT1FUTE May/June 1S . New York minimizes torque imbalance. Samples are the joined wing rotor concept by Professor Stearman and a shrouded rotor concept by Charles Donelson of Naugutuck. Professor Patterson of Cal Poly has acquired data on ground effect. Proiessor Stearman relies on models to gain data on his unique joined wing rotor concept which aims to enhance lift and controllability in ground effect. e-mail: rsopher@sikorsky. Connecticut. At the University of Austin. here are feelings among some people that only a radical departure from conventional helicopter configurations will yield the prize. Fax (203) 386-7465.org/lHPVAl. Iwould like anyone interested to contact me directly at (203) 386-6825. Spring 1995. web site http://ihpva. T Fig. One alternative suggestion is to assign one point for each second of hovering flight and one point for each 5 ern of height and that the height should be measured to the rotor blades and not the lowest point of the aircraft.of measuring the thrust and torque oi model rotors and Figure 3 illustrates the rig he has invented. Professor Eric Loth has pioneered the application of optimization techniques to design the X-391 Dragonfly configuration (See Human Power. Several designs seem to pursue this philosophy and are potentially a fertile source of ideas for strivers as well as theoreticians. 3 Rig for Accurately Thrust and Developed by Measuring Power Professor Model N a ito Rot 0 r orne people believe that the 3 meter height requirement is too severe and that it's possibly an unattainable goal. com. The Society needs to weigh these suggestions very carefully to pro- S 34 teet contestants who have already made significant progress and who may be close to satisfying the requirernens after many years of investing time and money. published by the International Human Powered Vehicle Association. A single rotor design proposed by Steven Winkler of Troy. In at least one case a full scale rotor has been powered by an electric motor to gain information on power consumption.

This was done during the summer of the group then felt it was time material to build the craft. This design weight was for a rotor which was within 2-3 feet of the ground. Later events caused the rotor hub to be raised to 3-4 feet and required a greater hp to hover. and simplified members of the Gossamer were available to provide light weight construction _I. or single rotor tip driven..Cal Poly students Dat/inci lll flies for 7. either tandem or coaxial. The tip driven configuration had several disadvantages. diameter and a human powerplant of . The next step was to build models of the proposed craft to check for stability. ". The students began a debate as to what would be the best configuration for such a craft. was made to build a machine vered rotors rather than using a guy wires. The data indicated that a 300 lb.. the students u. The driving propellers would be some distance from the power source and the mechanism would be more complicated. (Cal Poly photo by Doug Johnson) The Leonardo Da Vinci Flies! A Very Brief Overview of the-First Human Powered Hover by William B. The tip driven machine could be flown with only two rotor blades. . Several hundred man-hours were spent with electrically driven model rotors showing that as the rotor approaches the ground plane the induced flow and the induced power is indeed sharply reduced. terson. The dual rotor coaxial system would have a more compact drive mechanism but would require a minimum of four rotor blades._"n"'''''' increased our confidence. The first effort was to determine the effects of ultra low in ground effect (IGE) on induced power.8 hp. This configuration rotors to remain as close to the possible.1 seconds.. Three systems were considered: dual rotor. The consensus was that the craft should have some type of torque less drive. in Molt Gymnasium. the rotor would need a 200 foot radius for out of ground effect (OGE) hover. then made one of his cis ions. The decision was to try to fly with a tip driven system. copter Company was convinced that the chance successful flight and agreed materials.. San Luis Obispo started during the winter quarter of 1981. Cursory analysis of the induced flow indicated that for a man to fly in a craft with a gross weight of 300 Ibs. A guest lecturer from Hughes Helicopter Company mentioned to a helicopter performance class that the AHS was offering a prize to be given for the first Human Powered Helicopter to fly. Patterson T he Human Powered Helicopter project at California Polytechnic University. Using the them.·~-·-= . two for each rotor. craft could hover deep in ground effect with a disk of 100 ft. December 10 1989. The advisor of the club. The tandem rotor system would require four rotor blades and would also require an extensive support structure. A club was a permanent organization flight attempt. He laid a design team that the tip speed of remain less than 35 fps for This fla t put success back 4 years. obviously untenable. .

36. William B. (CaJ Poly photo by Doug Johnson) blade system that was very the successful craft that new vears later. to no avail. The first design put the It "\'. Therefore. but as the rotors ed upward. These young people demonstrate that the world of the 21st century will be in good hands. ever. 3 31 . The performance was JW expectations and stability problems e :)~ing found. the props were working the helicopter rotors actually turned. much lighter.u rotor to I 55 fps was found to be the optimum place to start in designing a new set of rotors . A new spar and further refinements could reduce the weight still further. The machine started to respond and a successful night was accomplished for the NAA on Dec. Patterson. The rotor spar and a hastily added guy wire system caused in plane and torsional coupled response as the spar strained.000 will provide the students with a minimum. The main structural ber of the Da Vinci I was a 4 in. 010. The long rotors were tested at Douglas AC in Long Beach during 1987 and 1988 and experienced several spectacular crashes. two students decided to rebuild the machine. in fact. the craft was unstable upon liftoff. whatever happens." uround effect. By fall of 1983. 10. The new machine weighed only 97 lbs without the pilot and had a diameter of 100 feet. cter carbon graphite beam with an 8 re wrap which was to increase bend. diameter craft with a constant cord was built. was just too high. ie r. It has accomplished much and will continue to achieve much with support. Propellers were already being designed using the Larrabee minimum induced loss equations from MIT.iornent stiffness. But. foVnduring this period with an electric etor. The craft was similar to the original machine but much more refined.If .(. c helicopter was finished during fi~~'kof 1982 and was tested outdoors. 1989. with the pilot. the world's first man-powered hover will never happen again. e CAMRAD program used at NASA es Was found to be amenable to mod g OUrflight regime and a tip speed of . The power required. The group decided to solve the performance problem with size. Da Vinci flies! This project and this organization is not only about engineering and materials. "nJ came up and the propeller drive . The machine. resent~tives of the group went on ~c. paying special attention to the reaction of the spar when strained and to reduce the weight as much as possible. the center of lift approached center of gravity and the expected nscopic stabilization was not evident. The student Chapter of the AHS at Cal Poly SLO needs funding to maintain its present high level of effort. The Da Vinci 1 was. e studems decide to redesign the center :tion to put the pilot under the rotors :! testing stopped for a period of one and ialf years. A new group of students took up the un: ~l i n 1985 and started testing the "aftil\ using the original rotor system. weighed only 225 lbs. Several tests were accomplished with ever increasing complexity of the guy wire system in vain attempts to maintain some stability. The new machine would have rotors which could be broken down for shipping and would have a constant chord for ease of manufacture. and had an optimal tip speed.insta- bilities.unidirectional tape top and bottom to add stiffness. A creditable attempt to win the AHS Sikorsky prize is not far away and will not be the end of our efforts. A more comprehensive and complex guywire system went beneath the center section to reduce.111 was found to be inadequate. Cal Poly. It lifted off successfully and was rglnally stable. carbon graphite spar wrapped at 45 degrees with. The group reduced the diameter to 120 feet and tested the system in the helicopter hangar at Vandenberg AFB during the spring of 1989. The possibilities for ever increasing performance and endurance are an irresistible lure. A 140 ft. continued level of funding. The long rotors were just not usable. As the craft started to lift it immediately rolled about the rotor axis. One was needed to make all of the necesrefinements to try another test.':e the rotors in order to make the it .llors were obviously limiting the ~formance. San Luis Obispo AHS Student Chapter faculty advisor. During the summer of 1989.r lobs to various helicopter and ic: flight organizations to gain expecc nd find better design tools for the no' a new rotor system. The main structural member was a 3 in. Endowment funds of as little as 5120. Failure only occurs when you give up.reg Me Neil receives congratulations after pedaling Da Vinci III in flight will go into aviation history. The results were the same. is an associate professor in the Aerodynamics! Mechanical Engineering Department. it is about the power of the will. This organization has been working on vertical night projects for a period of 10 years without funding or for the most part without assigned space. .

o ::
u

-

Q

-

-

-.

"" =
e o

= =

~~ o

_. ....,

=.!l,)

o

z

...

~~
o

...,~

~.

n c:::

....

r'"O'

2-. ~

>r.

... :r:t:l

c

o

:c

... -:

......til

c

5' o

-

Q.

-e

=
n

<1OQ 0

o
e Q.
Q.

~

z e

Cll

_.

'"C:I"TI c::: 0 -C
""1 I

::

3910 CONEJO CIRCLE

J. M. DREES

AUSTIN. TX 13734

D<?a.rKi za,
~il'7: have a r~;:)la.c~:ne::lt for ti'_= 'il~3terrt Re.2:ional Coor·.iinatcr. Per-haps. you o a n" pu1:. the. n e w ta1;?le (~~~?"!) w'It:~'Ily s~;.ort pr-og:-e:3:3 r e po r t In the UpCO:nl:lg l.ssue 0::: Vey-tl: II te. Please [lave SGr:J.e':n:.e c:2.e,:k my write-up for spelling etc,.

,MY,HFH e:'{}:ensesbetween .3/4/95 and 5/18/96 for mailings, teLeonone ana part of my cost to attend the '95 Forum Technical and tloard meetlngs last' year amount to $ 16,3,76, Yours truly

8~j,

Jan

Drees

1996

HU}{.t\N POWERED

!IELICOPTER

COMPETITION,

PROGRESS

R-;::;-PORT,

In Japan Pr o f . (ret,) Nai to is working on a Yury- I I, He flew the Yuri I during the August '94 AIAA Seattle meeting and demonstrated convincingly that the AHS Human Powered Helicopter prize is clearly techica 11v wi t h t n r-e ac h . I a m sure he is ing to ad.d some kind of control to eliminate the crafe: from dr_fting out of the required 10 ::netersquare. He dona~ed the Yu"i-l mod~l t~ the Nihon Oniversity.

90

A~other successful entry could come from Curtis Barnes. a long time participant of our competition. He b u t lt; se'"eral "tYDes of H?H '5 i:l th= past. His latest mac h Lne i:3 a ~3id~-by--side ... c o n f ig'-.l!""atio!l '",i":.h th~ rotors mounted ve"y low be Lo w the fuselage, It features a un i q ue way to c ornbi ne leg- and ar8-:mction t~ drive the rotors.

A number of prasDective candidates cal2.ed :me for information, ::;omeof which are in tne process of bu t Ld i ng a :r::a.cnine.ut SO::I!e B universities have stopped workin~ on their Mesigns. One Droblem is to preserve continulty as the.:.r teams. change eacn se:neate!"". Prof. Loth (University or Illinois) had e:o stoP after having manufactured already se?eral important composi1:e parts. ProI, Patterson of Cal-Poly, who was with his st~dents the first ever to fly an HPH a rid estab 1ish a recol-d, to lei me that he is ho o t n3 to start another deSign, Praf. Stearnan of the Un::.versity Te~as at Austin likes the program as an hands-on educational or o j e c t by formin:? each semes'Eer one or more HPH stude:lt desig:l teams, No word ye_ from Trie;gs (England) who was going to r e b ii Ll d his HPH that destroyed itsel! as I desc r t be d in mv April '95 Ve::--tiflight article. A coaxial HPE-!built by Saiki' was ready to be tested wnen it was de'3tr-oyed by fire in the hangar,

or

the the See

:M:r. Hos.sein

Mansur (NASA Ame:3) has replaced Scot.t Larwood as Western Regional HPR Coor-d Lne t.or before. He wa:3 involved in desi~n and building of the record setting Cal-Poly machine, upda~ed table of regio:lal Coordinators. Jan M. Drees, AHS-HPH Coordina~or REGIONAL HPH COORDINATORS Sopher (203)
(610)

NORTHEAST MIDEAST SOUTHEAST MIDWEST SOUTHWEST WESTERN INTERNATIONAL

Robert Hal

386-6825 591-2806 898-3148 935-4337 280-5595 604-6037

Rosenstein J. Huston

Robert Dave Dick

(804) (314) (817) (415) (011)

Peters Bennett Mansur Forzani

Hossein

(EUROPE)

Luciano Yen

33-42-95-97-49 (817) 280-2364

INTERNATIONAL

(PACIFIC) Jing

Human-Powered Helicopter Competition Heats Up!
by J. M. Drees AHS Human-Powered Helicopter Coordinator
The January/February 1993 issue of Vertiflite contained a comprehensive report on the AHS Igol". I. Sikorsky Htintan-Pn, (HPH) Helicopter Competition. T1Jefollowing will &ring interested readers up-to-date on HPH activities sin", tlri. discussion, The rules of the Igor 1. Sikorsky Human-Powered Helicopter Competition state that in order to win the lucrative ,520,000 prize, contestants must build and fly a craft that reaches a height of three meters during a one-minute hover. Prompted by the award, some 17 HPHs were built and in 1989 a NAA·cerrified record was set by California State Polytechnic U niversiry students under the direction of Professor W. B. Patterson. They flew their Vinci III" machine for 8.6 seconds and reached 8 inches of height. This record - a first for this new category of aircraft spurred further interest in the AHS-HPH competition. The Cal-Poly students' success removed any lingering doubt that an HPH could tly and although capturing the award would be difficult, it now appeared feasible. It is difficult to determine exactly how many individuals or groups are working on constructing an HPH at any given time, but we believe currently there are some ten being built. Creating an HPH is a long, slow process that requires patience and perseverance. In spite of the usual setback. disappointments, significant progress has been made ir last three years.

The Race is On
The competition has attracted worldwide interest participants testing and building machines from the 1 Japan and England. Tcdav's front-runner appears to be Akira Naito, a former professor at Japan's Nihon Lnive who retired in 1991. While at the university Naito aru students built and tested four machines. The first LTJ "Day Fly" -is reported to have lifted offfor a short mar in 1985 but this was not officially recorded. Although presently working alone, Naito is devoting all his time energy to building a winning; machine. He has crearec "Yuri-L" which had four two-bladed rotors mounted UI four outriggers. This concept was illustrated in a skerc

-r»

32

VERTIFlITE

March/April 19

It left a spectacular . 1 wre him that occasional setbacks are not uncommon for rc wing pioneers. the Yuri flew for 24 seconds and demonstrated its remarkable. working out ofwell-equipped workshops. R. )' III I Va].{\ Seattle.3." (The damage was evid caused by a tiedown rope.\bny of the individuals involved are ortcn cxpcrie craftsmen. No. An exception to the energy storage rule (".the 1958 Cierva Memorial Prize Essay of the Helicopter Association of Great Britain by E.al prize-winning .sculpture behind. "Is Man-Powered Rotating-Wing Flight J Future Possibility?" In August 1994 at the .46-second Hight. The student teams can divide up the many tasks and perhaps take advantage of some of the universities resources such as computers.2 --- . but every needed for Hight must be on-board. Yet. The essay WJ.S titled. A. Trent is determined to carry-on a! expects to be back in business in August 1995.. This led to a rule inrerpretatioi denies the use of any ground-based equipment.4. a nurnl rule interpretations have come up and I wanted to docu this information in this progress report. Kendall. Mr. stabilitv. But the students must also devote their time to their studies and each semester break can Cause a disruption in the work flow and in the composition of the teams.. 41. of his "Spinfly" test rig after it collapsed during the '': up Backyard Barbecue Party. it is difficult to rnaintai: momentum during the flight test phase because OJ necessary redesigns and repairs. C they can stay focused without interruption and move [ quickly.~ . • Students working with Professor Erick Loth c University of Illinois selected a design with a large bladed tip-propeller driven rotor and computer-stat tion with radio control to the rotor blades with sensr keep the aircraft stable. when it comes time for the Hight test h. WA meeting on Human-Powered Flight. considerable knowledge about mechanical design. The fragile machines are su: tible to breaking easily. Additional Rule Interpretations Since the publication of the last comprehensive Vert article on the HPH in January/February 1993.~. ~. It is interesting to speculate whether university teams have an advantage over individuals in this competition. is very close ro half the time required for the :\HS award! Earlier in Japan the craft achieved a height of about 1 meter and in March the Jap:lI1cse Aeronautic Association witnessed a 19. was made by allowing small capacitors in on board elect devices. possibly setting J. . Twentv-four seconds . Com] and radio control devices are permitted.\I:\.) Fortunately. required. If you follow the HPH attempts it becomes re apparent that the successes of the "Da Vinci" and the "~ did not come overnight. Regardless if the participants are individual e prerieurs or a university team. Reg Triggs sent me a pi. Mr. new official record.:. The "Yuri-L's" lack of control is the biggest obstacle standing in the way of its ability to stay airborne for a full minute as well as keeping the horizontal motion ota fuselage reference point within a l Ovrnerer square as required by AHS-HPH competition rule 4. This include generation of electric po\ver and batteries and solar ce not allowed.

1 design that features a single large three-bladed rotor based on J "joint wing concept.~.Stearman arid his students . The rate of progress has been increasing significantly and if the present technical progress continues we may see one or more athletes pedaling their HPH to a height of three meters in the not-so-distant future. The coordinators concluded that a flywheel would be permitted for steadying the pedals but only if there wasn't a clutch in its drive train that would allow running up the tlvwheel separately before the Hight and subseq uentlv clutching it in to make its rotational energy available during the Hight. Plus. it appears that this significant challenge may be met in the ncar future.) The Cal-Polv and the "Yuri" vehicles discussed earlier both feature a flywheel to steady the rotation of the pedals. -~ :."7'. -: .1.it . Participants also must satisfy the insurance requirements set forth in rule 6.. critical dement because a chain or a gear failure at 3 meters could have serious consequences. -i 34 VERTIFLITE MarcbJApri11995 . they must have an added useful purpose besides buoyancy (such as tor supporting accurate laminar-How airfoil contours or for crash absorprion. Several AHS. the drive systems will be J. This remains a major challenge because it requires the power for the climb while simultaneously overcoming the partial loss of ground effect..HPH coordinators felt that the rotating parts of the drive system should have been exempted as well. I don't believe that this means it will take another 15 or thirty years to reach our goal.~ - Summary. Safety and Insurance If we regard the first challenge in the HPH competition to be flying at all. They do not anticipate having J flvwhe el for the pedals. Rule 4. Reviewing Naito's 24-second flight.:' .ir the Austin are working on ... Today's achievements indicated that we are about onethird of the way to the finals of our now fifteen-year old AHS-HPH Competition. the second challenge will be staying aloft for 60 seconds." There is a tai] rotor above the main rotor and the machine is driven mechanically by a crew of two. The third and final milestone is getting that momentary spurt to 3 meters in height. The HPH coordinators strongly recommend crash absorbing seats and/or tanding gear designs.4 specifies that energy storage is not permitted except in rotating aerodynamic components. This is the moment when the pedaling athletes will have to show their mettle and where the fragile vehicles themselves will be tested tor efficiency and strength. • Professor Ron C niversiry of Texas .than -air solids are used. The design studies submitted prompted the following interpretation that iflighter. such as rotor blades used for lift and/or control.1..

has retired. Among/his rincrions. former AHS Membership Chairman and as a member of the Education Committee. Director of Vehicle Technology. The folle 56 VERTIFLITE Sept/Od 1 . After graduating from Carnb. to date." HPH Igor Sikorsky Prize Still Awaiting a Winner Regional contacts are available to help aspiring HPH contestants by offering advice about design and other technical questions and to ensure that the entrants meet the necessary specifications.000 prize is still unclaimed . These advisers are also willing to act as official AHS witnesses to anv attempts. (See related article in J ani Feb. Euan Hoapar Retires Euan Hooper. the AHS Human-Powered Helicopter Coordinator. possibly more. Helicopter Div.. He has been a member of AHS since 1962 and was awarded an AHS Honorary Fellow in 1990. He is currently working with the Mi Region on its plans for the 50th versary celebration. The Board of the American Helicopter Society established the Igor L Sikorsky HumanPowered Helicopter Competition in 1980 and since that rime approximately 17 machines have been built and more than 1.awaiting someone who has managed to fly a human powered helicopter that reaches a height of 3 meters for at least one-minute.000 The 520. and of the Society's Presidents' Club where he has sponsored. Forum Technical Director. he served apprentice at Bristol Aeroplane and during his tenure there workrotor dynamics. Hooper is also an Assc Fellow of the Royal Aeronautical ety. or AHS National Headquarters: AHS Fellaw W. Hooper has had a long and illustrious career and he has served the Society as' a past President of the Mideast Region. In 1959 he be the technical assistant to Chief: neer Raoul Hafner. the following regional contacts. University in 1954. I expect that this year five serious attempts will be made. "at the moment there are indications that well over 10 machines are being prepared to fly in the next two years.500 inquiries have been answered. the Technical Council. Boeing Defense & Space Group.) According to Tan M. more than 200 members. 1993 Vertiflite. Drees.520. For more specific information on this challenge please contact either Jan Drees.

" Colonel Tom Reinkober . Hutchens.HCA News by the Helicopter Club of America President John Williams. Co-pilot Idaho Army National Guard Aircraft: Bell OH-58 Sportsmanship Award Geroge Egbert. the Human-Powered Competition is heating up in apan and elsewhere. and" Measuring the Value of Reconnaissance. ("'Bud") Forster addressed "'Army Acquisition Corps and Army Aviation.HS Hampton Roads Chapter. Idaho Army National Guard Aircraft: Bell OH-58 Arkansas Army National Guard Aircraft: Bell OH-58 S2 VERTIFlITE May/June1994 . commercial. progrJm director for aviation electronic combat. and military.199.commenting on "Science arid Technology Initiatives For Future Army Aviation. Both Nihon Universiry and Illinois University plan to participate in a HumanPowered Aircraft Conference sponsored by AlM to be held in Seattle during August 1994. a retired professor from Nihon University in Japan. and Lt. The advantages of the Naito de vice include the absence of an titorque (it has four rotors under four outriggers). Virginia.3 for six seconds at a height of one foot. Co-pilot Arizona Army National Guard Military Catagory First. pilot and Jeffrey J. r his fourth effort. regardless of the category. co-pilot receive their first-place award at the National Helicopter Championships. pre. Pilot Paul Hendricks. a design which maximizes available ground ef- ana feet. a quick spin -up of the rotors. Human Powered Competition Heats Up According ro AHS Coordinator Jan Drees. Co-pilot Second Place Tom Mix. is devoting fulltime to building his fifth humanpowered helicopter. HPH Coordinator for the Western Region. 1994 Under the threat of thunderstorms and high winds. spoke on "Digitizetion of theBatrlefidd. The YURl-l. HCA News (The following will be a regular feature in Vertiflite . past president of thr A. scnts 5100 US Savings Bonds to Se nior Division High School student~ Luke Majewski (center) and Ronald Callis (left:) in recognition of their winning presentations at the ForryThird Annual Tidewater Science Fair in Courtland. Las Vegas. The over-all champion was determined from the best scores."\ID Corporation. and 1994 could be the year the award is claimed! Akita Naito.Place James Hutchens.) The 1994 National Helicopter Championship. General William F. reports that California Polytechnic is busy developing an improved version of its record-setting da Vinci III machine." by Dr. A. Co-pilot James N.i." with Colonel Randall Oliver of the Aviation Applied Technology Directorate. Meanwhile." Fall initiatives will include programs on "Applied Technology . the National Helicopter Championship kicked off at the Silver Bowl Stadium Complex with 20 helicopters flying in.private. panel of six AHS members from the US Army Aviation Applied Technology Direc· rorate (Fort Eustis) served as judges for the event. Pilot Jeffrey Johnson. Scott Larwood. Ernest Borqnin« (right) was the Grand Marshall of the event. Ken Hampton. May 6-8. is shown on a VHS tape hovering effortlessly (and quite stably) on December 5. Monti Callero of ~\. Pilot Danny Dunn. Johnson. Pilot Jeffrey Johnson. Tha Winners Over All Champions James Hutchens. A total of rwelve crews competed and there were three categories of competitors . supported by hard working students.

Sonny also was kept.C. Mr.-diameter rotor won't do an HPH no matter how many ro blades are used or how fast the dri pedals. -Drees a provided the artwork for this article.. Helicopter Coordinator. earning the £50.diameter rotor) built by California State Polytechnic University students. provit that the total area swept by the rotor: about the same as for the single-ro concept (if rotor areas overlap. Inspired by this achievement. Drees is the AHS Human Powe.. It is quite likely that these bOI do not accurately predict ground eft 1M. Although some studies show t a 50 ft. Sikorsky Human-Powered Helicopter Competition by offering an award (now $20.S. VERTIFLITE • Januar/IFebruary t: .6 seconds while reaching a height of 8 inches . with their "Da Vinci" III machine. In 1989... who will witness the attempts as the national representative of the Federation Aeronautique International (FA!).. Drees n August 23. even if the AHS criteria are not met (this has already happened). 1977 Dr.15 ft. the subject of the HPH has led to a number of analytical and design studies (which have been published over the years in technical papersj-as well as a conceptual design competition organized by the Stratford Chapter of the Northeast Region of the AHS in 1985. one needs a vf:l'j large rotor ameter. The participation of these institutions opened the way to set national or world records under slightly different rules. In addition. A Tough but Worthwhile Project Many of those who decide to spe the time and money to build an H tend to underestimate the task: it is .. studies were published that indicated it was perhaps possible. . "Sonny" Darlington became the AHS-HPH coordinator until I took over his function a few months ago. record by flying for 8. it is better to think ab . and in 1980 established the Igor 1..~--·-· .efforts by university students in the United States and in other countries. E. a multi-rotor cone will work with smaller rotors. busy during these years. The most successful attempt has been with an innovative design (and a 100 ft. The Human-Powered Helicopter Challenge by J. 1961 attempt by Clifford Davis. be possible.-diameter rotor might be enoi to lift 250 lb. In the United States.000) for the first HPH that reaches a height of 3 meters during a one-minute hover flight.Humcn-Powered '·FHght...000 prize. mainly in England. In order to gener enough rotor thrust with less than 3/4 to' lift the weight of the vehicle and driver. co these areas only once). We found that at least six attempts had already been made and that. or more. although the consensus was that flying the Kremer figure eight might be too difficult initially. as easy as simply attaching a small p peller to a bicycle. they established an NAA-certified U. some of us at the AHS looked into the feasibility of a human-powered helicopter (HPH).in the 1960's. He formulated the AHS-HPH regulations and conditions in cooperation with the National Aero Club (NAC). but an encouraging de onstration that human-powered he copter flight may indeed. Our analyses. the national representative of the FAI is the National Aeronautic Association (NAA). the theory predicts tha single 20 ft. O "---:.500 inquiries that led to the building of 'approximately 17 HPH machines.:_ -. Many of the concepts were designed and fabricated by individual participants.-. the less power it takes to hoFor instance. Just hovering alone was considered more than enough of a challenge for a first step. Textbooks on helicop design teach that the bigger the ro (low disc loading) and the closer rotor operates to the ground (grot effect).. Paul MacCready's Gossamer Condor was the first human-powered aircraft to fly the required Kremer Award figure eight.not enough for our AHS prize.. face. Of course. Helicopter design textbooks usus are written for normal helicopters i not for conditions the HPH builder . found that it must be feasible. answering about 1.M. supported by an ad hoc AHS committee. The Board of the American Helicopter 32 Society agreed. but a fair number resulted from group.

TlIDe will tell. Nobody knows how much control winds a major problem for staying withwill be needed for just one minute. Only then can we start thinking blades. etc. we should not forget the athletic aspect of the competition. Another suggested method to stabilize the machine involves mounting a vertical pole under the fuselage that is held in position by a tube mounted on or in the ground. (1 mention this only to stimulate our imaginations. control. by shifting the c. but it will not be allowed during official attempts. I encourage future participants to contact me directly or through the AHS office if further clarifications are needed. but in the confines of the IO-meter square. Although it is interesting to speculate how the pilot. Questions Raised Concerning the Rules Sonny answered many questions about the rules. pedaling with all his might.g. A frequently asked question concerns the use of Energy Storage Devices. Moreover.bilizing the craft during the takeoff and landing. but in coaxial and other retical work to extend our knowledge to multi-rotor designs. severe upward bending or coning can lift a large part of the rotor high above the ground. one may not need a tail rotor.like flying the Other unknowns are whether the maKremer figure eight! chine can be sufficiently controlled withthat have come up repeatedly. retracting the landing gear could help substantially in reaching the 3m of altitude since the lowest part of the machine .1. Paragraph 4. simultaneously. A Landing Gear may be needed to stabilize the run-up. The demand to deliver the power for the 1minute flight with a momentary spun to reach 3 meters is fierce.for instance. batteries. designers the coming years more about what it still may have to consider anti-torque takes. Taking the discussion one step further.4 allows two ground handlers to assist sta. lighter-than-air solids. but not a battery.4 of the regulations states that storing of energy is not permitted in other than those rotating parts that are needed to dri ve the rotor. Flywheels. rule 4. often of a design-specific nature. since the tube will be regarded as pan of the aircraft. I will summarize some of them in the following paragraphs. the very low ling the craft during the one minute of blade tip speed could make even light flight.Human-Powered Flight . Many contestants would not mind leaving it behind at liftoff. r am sure that period of time. but that is not permitted: no part of the aircraft shall be jettisoned during the flight nor the rotor spin-up and takeoff (rule 4.an interesting tradeoff to leave to the designers to solve. There are a number of questions . It is recognized that blade tipweights will increase the kinetic energy of the rotating rotor and can be helpful to climb momentarily.according to rule 4. clutches. springs. it must be consid- Da Vinci /I attempt in J 987. accumulators.is used to determine its height above the ground. tipweights add to the gross weight and thus to the human power required during the entire duration of the flight . Remember. Although the use of lighter-than-air gases is prohibited. The use of Rotor TIpweights is permined since they are considered an integral pan of the rotor (they may be needed to reduce blade coning or vibrations. for 70. rotate very slowly only a few feet above Then there is the question of controlthe ground. Even if only a very small electric current is required . On a helpful note. are not. resulting in a costly loss of out a collective pitch mechanism or even without cyclic pitch (for instance. or with rotors driven cover the full spectrum of rotary wing by propellers mounted on the rotor design. would do this. That may be a good idea for trial runs to check out the lifting capability of the machine without needing too many helpers. Everyone who has seen the pictures of the Cal Poly "Da Vinci" attempts will agree that the problem of rotor blade bending must be addressed: both "droop" at low rotational speed to keep the blades off the ground and "coning" due to aerodynamic blade lift at operational rpm. much can happen even in such a short as required by the rules. On the other hand. capacitors and other devices for storing energy are not acceptable.5).4. Another major concern for HPH designers is to keep the gross weight to an absolute minimum by using very light and strong materials. around through crewmember body motion). rotor blades.to 100 ft.1. Although a clarification through more trial and error and with of the regulations allows large swings in new innovative designs we will learn in yaw to take place (see below).-diameter rotors that ground effect. such as recently created in laboratories.) Extremely efficient structures for fuselages and rotors are called for and the latest in bicycle technology or other innovative drive systems should be considered. Finally. And all the while the driver must control a machine that may be shaking and trying to do its own thing like a true helicopter. A tail rotor may be needed in new insights will be gained from theosome concepts. about the next step . for moving a trim tab then a small generator should be used.1 . or to prevent blade flutter).). provided that they do not assist in accelerating or decelerating the rotor or lifting the fuselage.2. I also hope that. for lift and control (like gears.

Publicity.1.4. The 26 AHS Student Chap' and the 20 AHS Educational Memt can play a major role in this. . (Since I am almost 70. . Yet if the last few years are any . In such cases a suspended plumb bob should be used to ensure that the entire aircraft climbed 3m. Luciano For. The question of how the four furiously pedaling crewmembers rotating with the rotor and subjected to centrifugal forces would figure out how to control the 250 ft. and enjoyment of making new things pen. Universities and Other Scho Already it is apparent that universi can make things happen.Human-Powered Flight ered a violation of the spirit of the contest. 3. The interpretation of rule 4. and it was therefore decided to disallow this configuration unless a nonrotating (fifth) crewmember is added. cation. ruling clarifies that yaw deviations are acceptable as long as they do not exceed 180 degrees to the left or right during the one-minute flight.000 originally. The 1987 special covered that there are quite a few devoted HPH enthusiasts. I have dis- 4. . a 20m x 20m square is used). Future Cour-se for the HPH Competition Since the moment I took over this exciting project from Sonny.000). I even envis that schools may get together to f( teams. Rule 4. Copies will be sent to those who are known to be already involved and to those who inquire about the competition. This came about because we had to convince the AHS board. I believe that there enough engineering and scientific peets to the HPH that can provide ] insights and make for excellent sr projects in aerodynamics.although difficult is not impossible. I want everybody to understand that we need to hurry. as wei the AHS Regions.) 11 will be available for advice to local c testants and to ensure their designs IT. now $20. The Award. All this combines to entice pe to participate in our Human-Pow Helicopter Competition.-diameter contraption was left unanswered. AHS Regional Involvement. that within my lifetime someone will claim the prize. We did that by showing a concept of four Gossamer Condors lied to a large hub to form an enormous fourbladed rotor (it would take a football stailium to test this monster). 1987 ruling concerning regulation 4. notably in Bri and Japan. . Ir There is a September 31. as it clearly did for the KI er competition in the years just be the United States claimed the priz have already asked our AHS Inte tional Vice President. I expect that t will be very instrumental on a local le to inspire individuals and to bring gether various groups. It has been recogn from the beginning that the mone award offered has been relatively s ($10. . 5-man crt''''. and test I vides invaluable experience. Yet. This short note in Vertiflite is my first step to rekindle interest in the competition and to provide some helpful hints for newcomers so they will get a feel of what they are getting themselves into before ·they start spending money. My plans are to try to increase their number in the hope.S. There is satisfat of conquering new territory. International 1978 concept: 4 Gossamer Condors. the competition has alre attracted considerable attention active participation. It is not inconceivable international competition will incn the stakes. that the HPH contest . (The list of these appointees \ be published as soon as possible.2 does not mean that the single nonrotating crewmem ber cannot make yaw motions. in. mechan design.tt HPH activities . devel team spirit. I plan from time to time to write followup notes to all the individuals and groups that are known to be actively participating.3 is that Reference Marks on nonrotating parts of the machine will be used by observers to verify that these marks stay within the confines of a 10m x. but also the incentive of se a new world record. The hands-on working with other: design. 2. order to stimulate region. new materials and structures. forts are under way to try to increase amount. and international regions of the AHS each have been asked to appoint an HPH contact person to work with me in nationally.1. and a "can-do" anin while the athletic performance requ must be rated equal to winning the 1 de France.. build. Particlpation. The U. the specifications of the compenn they may also act as official AHS \ nesses during attempts.) I outline below the action plan that I submitted to the board: 1. it all seemed to us a bit too easy. experiment.. before it could accept the idea of an HPH competition. to see what can be done in this resp S.2 which specifies that there shall be at least one Nonrotating Crewmember.lOrn square during the flight (For the FAI world record. it is clear thai: there is much I to our contest than just a mone award. There is not only the excite] of possibly winning the AHS HPH ( petition.

est. .inci" llhould be stahle enou~h V to prp. Deut. A fixture was constructed which allo~ed a test rotor to be operated In the ran~e of interest: Z/R (ratio of rotor he l-. The Ilnlv other conrl~uratiun Consid~red wn~ il. """. The roto~s are driven bv 3 foot radius propellers at the tips. B85 . A .. .nt·J m •. the Winter quarter of 1981 a ~est lecturer at a Helicopter ~erodvnaJIics class su. The reasoninq wa~ that nothln~ should keel) the ro t oc svstell frollbe Ina as close to the grouud as possible. PresumablY.:_.ade to hov~r under hWllan power."+ . Althou~h unsuccessful in achlevinQ a ... Introduction Several Veal'S a~o the AHS decided to sponsor a h~an powered helicopter contest.achine is the third generation.. The students concluded that induced power would be the ma10r problem.odel rotor was suppported bv a beall with a toIei\Zht and aor inis. --.:GN AND TESi' OF A He:·IAN ?r. sprin. Profile power was aeasur-ed at zero thl'ust after toIhic!l an~le Qf attack was the increased to ~enerate a ilven displacement as . The l'eallziltiull thil._Pr~li~inarv AnalvsIs This is a pro~ess reoort of th~ eftorts of the Cal Poly student chapter of the American Helicopter Society rAHSl· to win the I~or SikorskY prize. It was re Iect. The initial effurt was to predict if a ..t an ail'craft of reasonable size .gested that II student chapter be (orllled Cal Poly and that the at students atte~pt to win the prize. the onlv constant beinq the rotor blades." has 50 root radius rotors which taper from 8 root chord at the root to G ~oot cho~d at the tips. Several '!Ienerations of the -Da Vlnci~ have been redesi~ned and retested." ----Abstract "_ --. extension.lrlE iJES. co-axial councerr otat Icne svsteill. Durin.an po~ered hover. ~fter out ot ground effect (DGEI power wa~ lIIeasured a large plywood sheet was slipped under the rotor to" simulate 10 ~round effect (raE) conditions.lqht have 8 chance tu ~ln the prize led to a lon~ series of brain stor~in~ desi~n sessions.. but basicallv the requirement 1s to hover tor 1 .WERED HELICO?TER William B. An t electrically driven . ~ detailed rulebook Is available. Nu~e~ous IGE data points could then be taken at a ccns taut thrust and rotor RP1oI.h to rotor radiusl from a to . The pilot wauld then no t require anv C1]1 1nlr skills other than power output and the construction could be si~pllr!ed.1nute. Stud~nt Chapte~ o( th~ A~erlcan Helicopt~~ Socl~ty Cal poly San Luis Ouis~Q Ca. Tbe -Da V Inc I.2!:i.a 10 meters on a side." ···l-.. That suQgestlon bv Dr.easured b.ed because of cous ti-uct Ion dIfficulties and stabllltv p~oblellsdue to the lack or alluulal' um. Optl~um roto~ speed for f11~ht is 6-7 RP~.. The present . the contest would ienerate student interest In helico~tel's and turther the educational involvellent of future helicopter enqineoOrs.. The ~rouo decided that the "Dil.odel of a tip driven helicopter was built and found to be stablM with the pil(lt on top or the roturs. Patt~~90n Faculty Advisor to th~ Calpolv/A~ronautical En~. most active and lIostsecretive student chapters In the AIlS.. Wood initiated one of the lar.clude the need tor a control system. E. the atte~pt has ~en~rated a ~reat deal of interest in the helicopter industry. reach an altitude of 3 meters and stav within an arp...R.achine o( ~ana~eable size could be . :...

ade to bUild the structure with no satetv factol'to Insure that the wel'!l"ht kept to a . 2.0011563 10GEl . Po~er required at a 10 (oat hover 1s . The spar (allure forced the rotor root to be 3 feet hi. to redesi~n the center section to include a partial guy wire to co.lleter 1'rollthe 1l0SSaQlel' albatross 2 inches because of t~~ 6n~o ft-lh bendln~ aa. The total airc["art wei~ht iIIas stlllated to e be 300 Ibs includin~ the pilot. addin~ the pilot's wei.01312 tip lass (actor· Cqa •. The above -first cut esti~ates were _ade usinq the Gessow and Mve["s procedure which appeared to use a clark-v aer(011.. the rallowin~ was concluded: 1Ht • 300 1bs rotor radius .86125 hp. Later e9ti~ates would be aade usin~ the Llssaman 7769 ll(t-dra~ data and two di~enslonal Claw analvsis. The _aln rotor spars were (abricated bv slip fittin~ 14 foot sections to~etber to tor~ the 48 foot aain spar with varvinq wall thickness.ent predicted fo~ the ~oot.5257 bp.1 bp (or the profile dra~ coaponerrt and . Sl1"ht changes in powe[" required were predicted usin~ the . The ceneer section was to be unused " inch carbon tubin~ lett over tro_ the blade construction. Also. The estimates were (or . Structural Desi~n The rotors were to be as close to Gossamer Albatross win~s as was (easable.15. and at a 4 (oat bover the power required is estimated to .. a ji. The tina] fabrication o( the rotor blades. the ['otors. thread stretch was e!(ectin2 drive line efficiency.!Il"~eL" I chord and the (act that the r o t cr-s were cantilevered instead o( supported bllgUY wires. M The power required esti. ~ Reauired Calculations r the Oa V j nc I blades have a l. The group Celt that the d".slli1n prollenand one o( was the Gassalle~ Albatr~ss tea~ was a student d Cal Poly and would be available to provide advice.919 of . tor one lIinute.oullt~a.5 to 1 hp Cor the induced drai co.pensate (or the underd~9iqned spars.ethods from Ref 1. 08556 thrust coefficient • . with the pilot sittin~ 3 feet above the rotors. The ribs we["e to be exact copies of the albatross ribs usin~ ca~bon (ibe~ reinforced polyethvl~ne (oall. The pilot powered winch buckl ed under the tension oC the dl'i ! W thread. and caused the tea.ponent at bp required. ~ The . The drive system beln~ tip propellers rotated bv a one way drive consistin~ of thread wound around the prop shafts and winched In bv the pilot. proceeded at a frantic pace with _ost or the care and attention ioinq into the rotor blades. Acco~~odatians (or allowin~ the pilot to rotate relative to the rotors was also incorpo["ated to co_plY witb the contest rules.lnl_un. The prillarvdlf(e~ence would be size 886 The first series oC tests p~oved that not encuzh attention was paid to the powel' supply svate.ht of only 140 Ibs the aircraft wei~ht was 40 Ibs under the orIginel 300 Ib estimate. The (lnal wel~ht for the total st~ucture was only 120 lbs. Tbev were hand formed usi1\11 the Eppler 193 a1r(011 section. The tlll'ea.The outlook tor the pro~ect looked !j:ood an it etficient drive svste~ could be devised and the wei~ht could be controlled.50 ft solidity •.ore detailed procedure.her than antiCipated.35 and at a ~/R of . model rotor tests.This testlnq proved that 1. The desi~n was based on a 610 RPM at a forward velocity of 35 Ceet per second. The decision was .ated to be for a Z/R reduced bv a (actor of . The rotor roots were to be at as near ~round level as could be arran~ed.2.ates for the possible 300 lb. The spar (ailed within 20 Ibs of desi~n stren~th. A spar was t~ted Cor strenqth prlor to final construction. The rotors were to be d["ivenbv Reans or tip props. and esti=ates of induced power reduction (ro. Cql is asti. Cqi 13 reduced by a factor of . The aerodvna. Several students were tested (or hp output and a bicvcle racer was (ound that could lj:enerate 1.6 hp.The fInal confl~u~ation was a2reed to b~ a twin bladed ~otor svste_ usln~ a torque less dt-lve. 0001878 Cqi ..ic load belnq si. aIrcraft fit well with concurrent testin~ bein~ done on power available. the drive pr-ope Ll er-s and the center section .ulated bv hanqinq partialIv tilled bottles of water from the spar. Th" pr-uus e . was built to 3upport the center section to allow testlnQ the props and dr-Ive train without .! was not stronl!' uouzn .5 hp tor 15 seconds and could avera~e .08. Usin~ .ain spar tor the roto["swas increased to a 4 inch dia.

puter prolj:ra.01·e ri~ed aountinq surface 1'0'1' prop shafts. The original dvna_ic .. A. decreasin~ the iYrascopic stability.ic stability.praject. Th~ center sec t Lon was cumpletely rebuilt with the pilot under the ro tOl' blades. and cou Id no t be balanced. 2.ned to'rotate at 310 RP!O( and wel'e !lade by a elCpandin~ foa.Larr~bee.(1979) The sec"nd lleneration Da Vinci was tested and still could not be 1'la{O'n. and helicopter 887 PI'esE::J1ted the 42nd annual !orul:l( the at o ~er1can ije1icapter SoclE::tv. June 2-8.o. ·Ae~adynamics of the HelicoPter. 3. 4. Mot. L See Ref a.ent 0'1' arraLe~.ut the des i'l"npracess. 1986 .part 1. 2085.ritten !fhich !fas bas~d an the the dev~lop. G. The al1"cra1't was not achievinlj: the predicted dvnall. Washin~ton. The winch _ust be strentthened andlor mu~t incarparate a ~ethod to' rell~ve the caqpression stress 0'1' the thr-ead.etho. E. It definitelv has illicited enthusiasm for 1"'. These include vibratory d~iclng af rotor blades and ICE hover atudies. The pilot has no .spots In his crankinlj:.Gessaw.. It prayed to be suitable until the other prableMs could be remedied. The rotor blades have been rt':cov~relland a new -$uller. nelOl tip rib was canstructed frO'_ a kevlar caated noaex aat er La l which atforded a .adels. DC.Garry c. Coi~duslans A project 01' thIs lIallnituderequires a great deal of develop~ent and !lust pass throullh several q"..Ungar N. As tor the Da Vinci Itaelf . . TIle prop shaft supports and twentv-fi1'th rib Must be •0di1'leo. The new props were desi~ned usln~ the CAD/~~ syste!l and a co. .odlfied so that the prop was auch clo~er to'a bearinq tberebve rai9in~ the natural frequency of the rotatinc prop shatto aerodyns.thread ha!l been (ound and is undel'~aln~ test at this tille. New props were desi. thread lIIas The still a proble~. The University has divel's11'led intO'other rield~ Q1'helicopter research due to the Ds Vinci .ics. and _ald process which al 1awed better unH'orllity af prop canstruction.l11'ications ! A polvurethane coated kevlar thread _as cho:len as th~ second jenerat!on power transmission _aterlal. jr.were turnin~ to fast. A. NASA Conference Pub.'\1'n1111{ 1Il"re al: .l take the necessary vibratarv and to static laads.and Myers. This coupled with cantinuing thread stretch was limiting the pilot output. The pl'oblelllwas that as the center of 11ft rose it reduced the distance to the center at ~ravlty of the aircraft.t:!nt and if salle. Referenc~s 1.j had been devised to b~eak the rotars down intO' s~aller s~ctions (or transllartatlon. both analytical and actual d Id not take Iu to account the cou Ing of the rotor blade~ in fli~ht. WDesiiJI a·tPrapellers far Motarsoarers·.E. the The shaft supparts w~re·. sante af the pl'ablells would have been alleviated if th~ ~ain spars had been aver des Igned in tOI'sion 8S w~ll as bendin~ .Y. : composite ~aterlals.nerations of students. to allow him to pull throu~h the "dead. as constructed w~re not praperlv balanced.entum in the syste.o. 1o{od1fications11 The third 'leneration Da Vinci is just now t'eachil1llcOlllpl~tloll. The props.

The NAA address is as follows: National Aeronautic Association 1815 North Fort Meyer Drive. Dick Bennett for advice. but not if their sole function is to provide buoancy (like in a balloon). This interpretation enables the use of on-board computers and other electronic equipment as long as all needed power is supplied by on-board generators driven by the crew.tongue in cheek. VA 22209 2. but we will allow their application for matters like shock absorption or for supporting airfoil shapes.M. Drees 3910 Conejo Circle Austin. 1.1. Rule 4. more questions concerning the rules have come up which I will discuss in this update. etc. . Ultra light "aerogel" solid materials indeed have been developed by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. but kept the NO-BATTERY rule while also ruling out the use of SOLAR-POWER..1 states that the HPH shall be a heavier-than-air gases are prohibited). It is important that active participants working on HPH and Regional AHS-HPH Contacts are aware of all the published rule-interpretations. The use of ELECTRONICS for control and stability has come up recently. Control inputs from the on-board flight crew and computers are not prohibited to be transmitted by radio to actuators as well as to other on board devices. Since then. 3. Texas 78734 (512) 266-1901 To: From: Human-Powered Helicopter Competition Participants 1. Dave Peters and Dr. No 1). Drees.M. Suite 700 Arlington. The use of REMOTE RADIO-CONTROL DEVICES to control blade pitch and flapping by helpers on the ground or by ground-based computers has been ruled out. Remember however: no batteries! For setting NATIONAL or WORLD RECORDS the Federation Aeronautique Internationale (F AI) rule interpretation often differs from the AHS interpretations given here. My article specifically states that batteries and capacitors are a no-no. I suggested . 4. I don't know whether they have practical use for an HPH. Sikorsky Human-Powered Helicopter (HPH) Competition (revision 7/23/86) were discussed in my Vertiflite article (JanlFeb 1993. I asked the AHS-HPH contacts Dr.1.4 does not permit energy storage devices.in my Vertiflite article that Lighter.Than-Air Solids can be used (Rule 4. With their help I concluded that the use of CAP ACITORS should be allowed in electronic devices.J. Participants who want to go for setting a record are advised to contact the National Aeronautic Association (NAA) for their position on these matters. Vol 39. AHS-HPH Coordinator MAY 1993 UPDATE OF HPH RULE-INTERPRETATIONS Interpretation of some of the rules of the Igor I.

> >My name is Matt Gentry and r am a Co-Team Leader of the Human Powered >Helicopter Team at the University of Michigan. > >This concept was researched minimally by our team three or four years ago and >they went so far as to call someone in your position and inquire as to the >Iegality of pyrotechnic actuators. > >Both of these designs will again we used only to adjust the blades to their >ideallifting angle and will not actually generate lift themselves. > >Matt Gentry >U-M HPH Co-Team Leader lf10/m· . a 9.ngle of attack and not used to generate lift in any way. > >Could you please tell me if these ideas would be legal under the contest >regu lations? > >This matter is fairly urgent.Page :2 of Z Bob Huston >Mr. > >In our current design we are looking into other possible actuation >techniques. Huston. > >Another design involves the use of shape memory alloys that change shape when >an electrical charge is sent through them. I found your name listed on >the .edu or (248) 425-8398.V battery would be >required to generate this charge.ARS website as the coordinator for the Human Powered Helicopter >Cornpetition and r was wondering ifI could ask you a few questions. However. > >Thank you very much for your time. > >My team is in the process of designing a system that will allow us to spin up >our blades at a neutral angle of attack and then. I would appreciate it if you could respond >as soon as possible. You can reach me at gentrvm@umich. once our desired RPM is >reached. as we have a research team designing our >actuators in a class at the university and they need to know which designs >would qualify as legal. They were informed that pyrotechnic >actuators would be legal as long as they were solely used to adjust the blades >a. actuate the blades to rotate to their lifting angle of attack. One of the possible designs calls for a spring loaded with a mass >that will actuate once the desired RPM has been reached. Therefore.

co. Huston" cr. <r.:1 '-' . I wonder if you have a phone number t I might add to my contact ~ile? All the best Max -----. I understan C~alle~ge ~rize and was wonderin _ Below is the text you asked for.. of "human powered t~a of the challenge helicopte r" (HPH) flight.j .!. 2002 6:22 AM Subject: FW: Human powered helicopter Bob.co.\..:x:= From: Max G~askin <max~pavilion. it's an ill wind that blows nobody any sforcune was timed perfectly. - . yes it is a tough problem to whiD. ~ :'. 10 Dec 2000 18:00:18 -0500 To: Max Glaskin <max@pavilion..huston§larc good and your mi sLbjec~ of h~~an you. I have made contact with the Thunderbird team g if you could point me in the direction of others.uk> Cc: Kim@vtol.].nasa. Just get a good athlete. If there's any t h i nq e..gov> Date: Monday.se d you then do please let me know..gov> Date: Sun.. Ja~uary 28. As the say. Robert Huscon .org Subject: Re: Human Dowered helicopter Max I'll give your questions Regarding the enormity a go. an aerodynamically efficient rot Page 1 .. First.~k> To: Robert Huston <name186@cox.:. . I am currencly revisicing :te Dowered helicoDters and was planning to renew contact with d that there are new teams attempting to WlD the Sikorskl foir an H?H.huston@larc.Forwarded Message From: "Robert J. it looks like a simple problem.nasa.Q:: .r.net>.

Neither craft came close to meeting the Sikorsky ce~pe tition requirements of a one-minute flight while reaching an altitude of 3 meters sometime during the flight. ination The rules do indicate tha such that one plus one is less than two.) Neither the Da Vinci III nor the Yuri I had any vehicle controls. on December la. "'light sGructure. 19 89. (USA) flew Da Vinci III for 7.HGscon=Glaskin- Cn EPE . dri ving a The problem appears to be one of coord single shaft.e. a crv. tone crewmember must be non-rotating. Page . Multiple "engines" would be acceptable however. and later again for 24 seec nds in a public demonstration at a human powered flight conference in Seartl e.1 seconds but reached only a few inches of altitude. The lIengine" must be a very light weight world class athlete. a design by Pre:es sor Akira Naito (the Yuri I) hovered first for 6 seconds en Dece~ber 6. Washington. which can recireu late the wake and may give the pilot some problems staying in one spot. So far. the Relios team of Canadians have experimentally demonstrated that the optimum number of engines. Second. likel ya sprinter able to give "his" all for slightly more than the 60 secon ds of hover required to satisfy the Sikorsky competition rules. t 1993. hovered for 19. I:: facc man powered helicopters have accually flown. 2 .1 seconds later in 1994. the calm day is usually obtained indoors. (0::' yes... at Nihon University i~ Japan. a team from California Polytechnic State University-San Luis Obispo. ar. is one human. the Sikorsky competition requ~res the aircra£~ to stay within a 10 x 10 meter square which suggests that the pilot will need to control the vehicle.txt or.d a calm day and g~ve i. First.

or on a single axis described as coaxial. The HPH only has to hover.) Each type is usually "namedM by the inventor so that even similar types appear different when described.l\_T\JS the a i rcra f t was stuck "in ground effect. or circled in a qua d configuration. hence eliminating the need for an anti-torque rotor. The earlier Da Vinci I II was a two-bladed rotor with rotor torque provided by a propeller at the t ip of each blade. None of these examples glve the inventor of a human powered helicopter any guidance. (The objec~ive in any case 18 to have the torque of multiple rotors balance each other.txc The experience co date indicates tha~ the two EPH desig~s flown we~ e absorbing nearly all of the hunan powe r available .Huscon=Glaski~- o~ EPH . before concluding that the quad rotor configuration (as used in the Yuri I) was the most efficient. Occasiona lly. Akira Naito experimented with these parameters over several years and wit h five configurations. All engine-powered helicopt ers are Professor designed for forward flight. Regarding the rotor. M Sometimes counter-rotating mult iple rotors are arranged side-by-side. hence eliminating the need for a tail rotor. n~mber 0': roce rs from one to four.M That is. Successful demonstr ations have been made with blade numbers from one to eight. helicop~er engineering has offered hundreds of solutions for conventionally powered aircraft. or in tandem. Page 3 . to Mhingeless. and the blade attachment to the rotor hub has varied f rom fully articula~ed. a coaxial machine has one of the rotors considerable smaller than the other. subscantially more power would be required to climb out of ground effect.

Unfortunately. he diameter of both two-bladed rotors at 115 feet (-35 meters)." Thus. most of the analysis tools used by the helicopter in dustry are not validated for the operating conditions expected for a human powered helicopter. of the order of 25 to 30 meters or more as illustrated by the Da Vinci III and the Yuri I. relative to that of a conventional helicopter. " which results from using a lightly loaded. the design data that I last received on the Canadian Helios is for a counte~-rotating coaxial rotor configuration w~th c. It could be inferred that the human powered helicopter would lag the human powered airplane by 30 years. For example. The rotor of a human powered helicopter operates at very low Mach and Reynolds numbers w ith the time between blade passage at a fixed point being. Simple ai~plane technology was inadequate to mak ea successful helicopter. I Page 4 .H~scon=Glaskl~- Or EP~ .es~ weight lifced for a This would result in overall vehicle dimensions given horsepower. slowly turning. very large roc or would give the highest "power loading. In addition with HPH blade Reynolds numbers predominately below a transitional Reyno Ids number (where the profile drag coefficient rises with a further dec rease in Reynolds number) the details of the blade airfoil section are criti cal. the rotor tip speed of a conventional hel icopter is several times that of a human powered helicopcer. The theory of vertical flight suggests that very low "disk loading. the greac. perhaps 50 times as long. This likely invalidates some of the assumptions used for conventional helicopte r analysis with regard to the induced flow of the rotor. Incidentally.cxc It shou:d also be n~ced tha~ hel~cop:e~ develop~e~: lagged t~e a~~? lane by roughly 30+ years.

The clim~ ma~ euver required by the Sikorsky compeci~ion simply moves the rotor from op erating ia extreme ground effect to rotor operation in a large ground errec t (even though at an interference level experienced by more conventional helicopters). A quick look at conventional helicopter ground effect charts helps t. are approximately one-blade chord from the ground.) be free of ground effect. the 3-meter hover requirement is a concession (by the a riginal authors of the Sikorsky competition rules). for a HPH to take off and fly vertically free of the ground. is likely a 100 percent increase in hover power from in.he "at ground rest" height of the HP H rotor. Operating a 35-meter diameter HPE at t he 3+ meter height required by the Sikorsky competition is equivalent to placing the landing gear of a conventional helicopter at or below the groun d. both the Yuri I and the Da Vincl III. to the fact that while hover of a HPH in-ground-effect is hard but possible. THE 3-METER HOVER REQUIREMENT DOES NOT RAISE THE AIRCRAFT OUT OF THE SIGNIFICANT INFLUENCE OF THE GROUND. whea at rest on the ground. (The + in the previous sente!1ce is t. it would have to rise to an altitude in excess of it. In fact.o illustrate the later issue. or to an altitude of 30 to 50 meters. che c:i~b :0 _ meters altitude is equivalent to co~ve=ting from a g=ound e:fect ~ac~i~e t o the low hover of a helicoDter with a short landing gear.Also.to out-o£ground effect. The magnitude 0 f the ground effect. because the lifti~g spa~ cf a HP~ is se la=ge. For a human powered helicopter to usually a fraction of a meter.s lifting span. escimates of the ground effect Page 5 . In my view. My owr. a ground-effect-free h over of a HPH is likely impossible.

. It should be noted that both D a Vinci III and Yuri I was designed with the aid of CAD tools..E~sto~=31askin- o~ E?~ .) II tI short of an available super human (drugs are prohibited by the r ules) the two aircraft would have to be redesigned to be larger (by what ever percent the power required grew as the aircraft rises to the 3-mete I r altitude) to further increase the power loading while maintaining t he same structural weight. Eye balling and guestim ates just wonlt glve the minimum weight. the powers of the weight engineer! This clearly illustrates that the detailed design must be based on well-defined structural loads and moments. ~ c· rief flights. Oh. . more than they dernon s tra ted a n t he . ll . If the weight grows in this process.6_.tx: sugges!: that. However. (A 25 percent growth In weight would require another 40 percent growth in diameter) This sounds a litt Ie like a dog chasing his tail. (Note: I have a 100 percent uncertainty in my guess. _ . is that it failed due to shock loads trans mitted through the power distribution system. the aircraft fell apart in flight and h ad to be My view of the structural failure of the Yuri I. Even so.. the inverse is also true. i: wlli tak e another increase in rotor diameter. . a video of the attempted flight.. for bo:t of the two EP~s tha~ have flow~. aft er the first flight of the Yuri I. _.-~_a g::. reach~ns a 3 me:er altitude with these aircraft would require an increase in power available fr om the engine of 20 to 40 pe r c ent. the power required goes down raster than the weight. based on rebuilt. If eith er aircraft can be built lighter. The lIengine was too aggres sive on the pedals.

To my knowledge no induscry or government grants mo~ey has support ed any of these efforts. However . inventors are also wo~king in Ger many and China. I pioneer inventors continue to work on concepts. VA in 2000. The Helios gr oup at Montreal did a public briefing at the American Helicopter Society F orum held in Montreal in 1999 and put up a display in the exhibit Gall a t the AHS Forum in Virginia Beach. Universities have offered a couple papers on the HPH. this appears to be a balanced effort witt 8 universities and 10 pioneer inventors working the problem. ~ools suitable for a nP~ are only slowly being p~t into p~ac Seve~al unive~sities are working this effort. No theory validation can occur until good scientific measurements a re available.Design e.. On the surface.ia. Aside from 8 individuals in the United States. Page 7 . This is in addition to the previously mentioned work on tn e Helios at the Ecole de Technologie S~periore in Montreal. and Professor William Patterson' s work at California Polytechnic State University. San Luis Obispo. and the Urliversity of Texas at Austin. Califo rr. Universities tta: ha ve indicated their interest i~ the problem include the University of 3 ritish Columbia. Professor A%ira Naito's work at Nihon University in Japan. I see essentially no cooperation. the Unive~sity of Michigan. This actually requires precise measurements with full-s cale In addition. Key data is not generally available and I believe it has not been m easured. Personal time and funds have supported it all. in fact some reluct~nce with most indiv iduals in sharing even their fundamental understanding of the problem. ~he University of Illinois at Urbana-Champain. the University de Sherbrooke.

They have tackled the theory of ground effect (though not validated) and shOll Id understand the issue of the mutual interference b3tween the two rot ors at different ground heights and the effect of the ground in climbing t o the 3-meter hover requirement. Within academia. if they had i t. but they would then know when they have to guess. The experience they have gained should make the m sought after by any smart personnel director from helicopter design organi zations. must generate the power t a run the computer as well as to power the rotor). They have included a computer controlle d blade pitch scheme (and according to the rules. As you already know. You asked specifically about Helios. I like their odds but I suspect they will fail with this configurat Eage 8 .) s has the advantage of attempting to fly the largest rotor to date. they would not find the answers they need. They have subdi vided the job into disCipline a~eas and have qualified student volunteers working in each discipline.Eusto~=Glaski~- On ~?R . they hay e the advantage of having formed a project organization. The helio (I envy their technical start in an engineering career. the lack of continuity wit~ students is an evident weakness. The technical skill 1 evels of the backyard inventors are probably adequate to build an HPH but eh ei~ understanding of the engineering requirements is often insufficient They need a formal education in helicopter fundaments but. They are using CAD an d high strength graphite structure to keep the weight to a minimum.txt hardware (or ae least very la~ge hardwa~e) for an adeq~a~e range 0: conditions to provide benchmark design dasa. while individual professors have bu ild an understanding of the HPH requ~rements.

a light ucture. an aerodynamically efficient rotor. Since t~e Sikorsky compeci~:on started in 1980. both in deep ground effect. ish the Helios team a lot of luck.Eus~e~=Glask:n- c~ E?2 . Even Igor Sikorsky first tried ~o desi gn the helicopter in 1909 and was not successful u~:il 1939-and then he co uld not at first fly forwards. VA 23692 USA Note: Yorktown nch and German troops) 1781. only backwards and sideways. But he will have a lot of luck. Sincerely: Bob Huston Human Powered Helicopter Coordinator American Helicopter Society Pe~sonal Address: 105 ILEX DRIVE Yorktown. Remember that. back to England PS I Your questions encouraged me to put in writting a few thoughts have I was recently asked to take over carried around on this subject. The winner of the Sikorsky Human Powered Helicopter Competition I just get a good athlete.~xt ieD. the coordinator job after having served the American Helicopter Society as Page 9 . wil str I w is where George Washington sent Lord Cornwallis (and our own bunch of Fre on October 19. a calm day and give it a try. individuals or teams have built 17 HPH but only two have h overed. it was Da Vir:ci ~EE ~H=RD that flew fi~st. a~~ ~~c:~ ssor Naito attempted to fly a number of different configura~ions before his success with the quad-~otor Yu~i T.

Just recognize there is a lot of my personal opinion in what I have written. . I'll try to look you if you can tell the difference. > Page 10 . For payment. I can't pass up the chance to sound off on some subject or another at a~y opportunity. up the next time I get to England and let you buy me a brew. lid be grateful if you could help me to put their attempt in to context >. I have cried to keep tte facts str aight. --------------------end of response magazine (or any ocher Dubli by Huston-------------------- >M:::HustOfl. > >1 wonder if you could comment enge they >have accepted? > briefly on the enormity of the chall >Also.l add ress . I had previously retired from NASA to get away from work but even they V-JO n't completely let me go. You have my oermission to use anything you want from the above dial og on the human powered helicopter. I am preparing an article about the Helios project in Mo ntreal and >would be grateful for a few comments from yourself. and as a Southeasc Region Vice President. > >1 am a freelance technology journalist writing an article for New Scientist >magazine. please send me a copy of it.Journal Ed~tor-in-C~ief fer several years. If any of this gets into New Scientist cation). (Note :ny e-mai. as the relevan tARS >co-ordinator. twice as Tect~ical Chair man of the a~nual Forum.how many other bids are being made to win the Sikorsky Prize? > >1 hope you can help.

co.uk ------ End of Forwarded Message _EJage_ 11 .>Kind > regards Glaskin Journalist >1::' Jew Street >Brighton >BNl lUT >United Kingdom > >Max >AGI of the Year >Tel +44 (0) 1273 748626 > Fax + 44 ( 0 ) 20 76 s i 1033 >max@pavilion.

'... ...... ~~ .:. 0 .' ~. . .. • . . '..-. .. •• 0 ..

... o :::J en en . ... ..w o u...t: .. \0 E L. ~ E fa ::I I- ra u. ra :::J cu :l In ~ ..

.

.. C fa c ta c.u .e en e 0 ... .......e u . U) .m \l- 0 fa I. -c c ra c aJ c ...c at C :I I. I.u CD m ...:z:: I:Q U .c::n 0 0 . ~ ~ I I I I I ..pi ....-a m c.. ..E . e fIj J2 -a >cu cu . .Q I...a. -a :c 0 Ec m 00 GJ . ..

.....0 U ...if...s::: C .... .i Q) OJ C .... .... 0 0 8j "- e:::: 0:::: ~ 0 0 z ..._ [Of: ffi ~ IE 0 . Q) .....:...0 u 2 ..l CD 0 VI tV .... .Q .. ro ro c .. U) ... ~ -c "0 C> ro ·E "0 0 'Q. Q) .if.. ~ m u "i iu .. a fa en c Ie c 1..~ (I) c ro c >.: i u t: 0 C ....:: .....[ I -...... ..i.0 ......". ~ 0 t: t: ... .. c 0 t: 0 ..i Q) OJ .:::...QJ . VI ttl lfi . (I) {/) (I) <:! 8:: ff1 ~ 0 iIi ttl .. 15 .0 Vl ro Q) :g "0 "0 OJ C ro: n.. ...) U t: I'll 0 !D OJ ttl 0.u ... a: C1I .0 ....s::: Q) (f) U ... 0 0 (-i3 ... OJ '- ro t: CD .. CI ::D !t~ IT...:: ..... (I) C1I 0:::: 0 t: 0 . .' S Q) 1J (J) CD .. (f) (IJ ""0 ""0 .

_ 1OJ c co c CIJ mC.c 1.J-J 0.0 0"\ T-I Ul .. 1. •• c OJ ~ .- o u OJ I a..- -a CIJ ::c CIJ I- o CL OJ .: 0 O~ u .....U en +-'0 ::l_a ::::J 0W 1- a a OJ a •• 1- LL N .- c.. SCf} I ""-' o ._ .........~ CIJ C .. u .Ul ~ o I- (I) I- C E ~ "'0 OJ U "'OQ) o en ..CLl ... a.. .c 4-J OJ E ~0 ::cU ~ EE >o co . « ...

..> -.0 E OJ CJ) CJ) co c ~ - Ul .1- (j) co eo Cf) 1- c.0 -0 C ..

J cu -c fa c U) U) m eu Q.0 1- . >I(I) "0 ..Q >- E G. .c (/) '"0 eu ro 1- U) 0..

.. l- ::s u :::s I:a +-' (f) "0 (I) II) Q...s: co (J) co l- ..> -....Q E cu U) U) C eu -c fa c .0 OJ E (J) (/) >.. ~ .

.c:o "'OU <t: OJ OJ >0. OJ ~ Q) a co ...... is: u ro U') E u o o.t. ~ c.... X OJ c :s2:::Jl9 (f) E~0 C c·c ~ Q) CJ)"O_Q E ~ ro >. Q) ~ E ~ U') ._.. 11T"'t~('(j ro OJ C U +-J ro~ .c: ..0 CO -0 C -0 -oQ) ... ro IV •• co E .. (J) ~ OJ::: >.ro Q) en 0..c:U . OJ - U o c.Q) ~ "'-' CO C...._. Vl . o .. 200.

Q) co Cl) . .J.c U) \. (])_c I 0 OJ c U :::J U U 1- u ro ~ 1- (f)CJ) N {fJ T-f r-i .n ....- .c ~ c..c (f) .. E 0 s: "'0 Q) 0:::: c c ..... '+- ......i:: U fa . fa fa 0 o.(/) 1- • .J rc ..c +--' OJ ...c E Z CIJ C (J) Q) Q...J.. co "'0 E 0 0 s: u E $Z u U LL ~ 0 0 -c ~ 'D 0 - '+- E OJ 0 • .c co +-J 0 (J) OJ ~ u >< 0 1- C 0 1- .J (/) -c CIJ fa 0 U..c -c ~ u 1l- ..._ c OJ I Ol C • U Q) Q_ I ::J +-JQ.

.. .Q tel LI. c o . eu -c ta tel .I_ tel U I_ I.

o Q.-1-1 U) .8 c: u~ z .. CU fa RS • CJ) . .E c...... 0 ..... ~ "'0 U) • ¢: .- 1. 0lQ) Q) r- ro 01 s.. "0 CO Cl) 1- .'"'..::J -0 ro 1- (J) • ""-' • .J • ""0 • J2 (J) -0 CJ) 1..""-' c: 0 OJ ~ en 0 E CJ) ro U D' r-.c: o C ...a.X 0CO 0 .CIJ Q . ~ . U Cl) en CO :....c u ""-' uE "'0 L- 0 E Ln T"'""'I E U T"'""'I .~ .c 0 a ......-0 -I-J C co U . ....c C (IJ .....Cl) +-J E CO M 0 0 ~ a.- ""-' CO ~ ro ""0 .~ E-I-J . ...c In ~ 01 .c ~ +-J 01 .....-t Ln en (J) N OJ :::J .._ .. ..-00 CO ~ - CU L._ Q) . .

c e ..:::.8 o L...E . =:.) : . Q..·t.. N .... .... o n:s . U') L.~~\ :....

E o ...Q.ft cv c . .u. :c ~.. C en (.- ra c .

~ .: .. I . . .u. CU: I· 1:J ' ...'! uu:u. :::J.I. . Ei· . 1. 0- U ttl I . . '0 : i ..! j i LO ···:•••• •••••• j!Tti~mj~mll! : '. ....:::::t ~JOsq8 G 0 0 (d~) JO~Ojl lad laMOd .. !:: I""o. • ~ !e :0 H : : • .:·: 'O. •••••• . : j~ :: i ~ !.."C I :.. i ~ ·····:·r····:·····. ..:.:CO ' : . u.: \ N :I: I.. ._ -c. : f. ~ ~ Iml... : . . E ....! . ·h("u. i.·····g···IE···I~·····'.s::::: ~ I:• o .······'······.8' I I 1 ! 0 d· .. C) c ..-' 4-' leu In': .. : : ~...E ~ ..: : .. i .:.. :~ m ···. ~.·6 u'II[!I~)~ti j ·!jll••. ~ 1::•••••• 1 ':.. ..u. ~ ..'.: 4-J: I : : . ·················p······U···-:-····II ············1 .~ ~ .·~!····Ql· ·:B····~·I·····I···.. ifU···iC. Jc • L..:l' .... C'a .m¥:...: .• : I.. u·· .. «~ fa ~ ~ ~ .. : U} '+.

.OO'orlo\OO ..lr-lO r OOOOOOOOOOr-l 00000000000 o r-I \..<)O'oCDCD r-O<::' Lf')r-I\... -0 H til t-r-IrlO'<l't'<l"t-("<)N.:I r-mOrlN'<l'I.:J .<) OCDt'<l"0(.rCG C QJ .:J QJ a.-l'<l'CD..t1t-\DNL(){T)\Dr-I(.-lOO'oCO\D'<l"NOt-'<l"O\.-lZ '<l''<l"'<l"'<l'1..:I '<l" 0' o..-l'<l't-O(.<)\.O'<l'NOCO\.J >.0 r-Il...0("<) <f)<f) 0 t-O)t-N(.0 L()Cl) <:r 0 \DCl)rlCl) 00 \.c o QJ 0.OO'I(.O{T)CO0 '<l"<::'<::'<f)1. <U CG c o t-ONI.O(..-l.-l .t1t-a:>0'0 ..--j ::r: C 0 >.t1 a:> O(Y] \.Q +-1 ill -0 N [I til ill . 4-1 ·rl .0\.0 r-Irl \Da:> {T)("<){T)NNrlrlOCl)O'Ia:>r-\.0\..-l r-I. 0..t1a:>..OO 0\..0 QJ QJ 'II> 'QJ til til .-lr-l ..-lO L()<f)'<l" ("<)Ot-O NNrlr-l NNN ..-lCDI.t1 \. (IJ ON\.O00 '<l"<f)<f)<f)L()Lf')'<l"'<l"'<l"<::''<l"<::'(''<)M(''<)NNO 00000000000000000000 OOOOOOOOOOOOO~OOOOOOO (IJ("<) U rlLf') \.ONO)I1) a..-lrlNNN(Y]("<)("<)("<)<:r'<l"'<I'Lf)L()<f)\.O'<l'NO Q) r-I '<1'\..J o til til ..O\D 0.P..cu GJ U) - .> til <.0 0 t-t-r-r-r-r-t-t-r-r-O t-t-r-t-t-t-r-t-r-t-O III <f)Lf')11lLf')1.jJ (ij c >-I -r-i O.-lr-lrl r o U o o U .:J 0 .<)\.:I {ij ~ o z E: <::''<I'r-I1)\. (]J E: '<l"N'<l" 0("<) <f) 1. () C C ill {ij E: til tIl-O <::'<::'t-11)\D0 0\.-..c .<)\.-l\Dr-<f) O\t-O)("<) <::'("<)0 N<f)COr-l("<)<f)I.<)... >...-lN LflO'lOt-a:>(Y] 0\..-1 .ONI.-l(Y]'<l"I.0 NO). .<)O rl'<l"{T)N.t1tC)Lf')Lf')<f)Lf')1.<)("<)NNO ·rl .j..ON \.-l.OM.t1Lf')Lf')Lf')'<l"0 00000000000 o :s: -0 U M("<)("<)f")("<)(Y](Y](Y]("<)(Y]<J:) Lf')Lf')Lf')Lf')<f)Lf')Lf')Lf')<f)l1)rl r-Ir-I ...t111lLf')11lLf')0 o •• (..t1r-ON<f)r-ONL()t-ONLflr-O Or-l rl.t1\. MNO a:>t-I.r-o H ::r: QJ ..O{T)CDO L()L()11)tf)<::.<)(..t1 N'<l' t-O ("<)\..O \...0 000000 \D r-Il QJ 0) .0 L()O) <::'0 \..<) t-\D<f)(Y) <::'(.-l'<l" .t10) 1...00'1 NI.Q .0 \D\O\.OQ) 0'0 O'o\.-lr-lNNNN{T)("<)("<)("<) '<l'NOQ)\.OO'oNI.-I.00'1 til .0 \.O'<l"("<)r-Ia:>'<l" NNNNNNNN.Or-COQ)COr-I.-.. o 0..0 0 tf)t.0 \.N QJ QJ rl N -00 o . ..t-'<l" 0 (.0 \D \.O'<l'NOCO\. u C ·rl . 'QJ CIl 0. .OCOCl)O.

J G.o G.c '0 ~ L. ..U) .J c ~ U) .

.

.....J "'0 OJ .'- e en ::I Q......-t '1""1 Q.... 0 ~ 0 0 Q.....- . >. s: > 0 ~ en fa I..._ G....0 \. 0 t..J U) * ::J: ::J: I'.......... . U L....._ u In ... CO N \...0 0 0 .. "- Q.E ItQJ ~ ::::s .. Q.... U) U) .... ::I CV E = -c fa I- Q.. co ::::s u CO ~ _J . r. N \... ....0 r. "'0 CU ~ .. .8 CO u OJ c ........... U) Q. .........c ....J :::s 0 .. JIc: •• ...0 00 \0 0 ...o::::t .-< N . < Q. G..... > -c e ..c ..:::t!.. ·.._ .o::::t . 0 ......Q • • . 0 00 I~ = .. .... .L....c .. Q...J I..r) o::::t o::::t E = E . :::s ClJ OJ '1""1 c . 0 OJ .. > cv •• ...J) e. ... ..L...... N . 00 ....J Q.. I- Q.

u c ::J: •• OJ I ...1.U I! o e "0 c: ~ o 01 :p o 10) 1- -I-J c: ::J -0) o S· u co 1- .-U Xc COm . "- c en• 1..~ BE I ~C§ e '" ....o .- = en ..

'-....:0 P '\ .} 1/ \\\\ \_ .. U) u I- I- aJ .~.._:.•. o u c U) 1- . _1T"'Ii '~'~·l~ l.-..I! = \<i·. ..._ _ OJ \...'l lj .....c o .. !I 1..1 f.. /1 \. /t \\<..c u -c aJ I- .. c: •• .. U ItS ta l- .. u CO c: "'-' OJ_ \~« . I?.- 12 ::s en ..

5 E '-e C ta .n.S: o~ Q.c Q) c :l ... c >-. L.~I-t A.0 I.Cii:w I I Qrau CD '"C ...c 0 =cnc::n I..(..ft-a Q) Q.- ..ft o ... (.ra o I.... Q._ .. Q...:l (. > Q) Q) ...... W -u :l -c .ft "C ~M ~= Q) I.>.... . > ::I U)..a.. en 0 . . ~""Ri o0 Q) •• 0 Q)N_ >:l I. ta ..Q '"C (JJ •• _o (JJ Q....

.._ > e. ._ U} \t. . m I I .... U} S I u u N i II ...\ \. . ~ \-. II./) ... ~: / !} ..c en ... ~ c m Q. •• ~ = o .. I I ....-...... I i i ../ . /l . ~ .

.ro U') ."'...c 01 U') • ~ I- 0 ....c GJ E r. ro -1-1 Q) CO ta . ~ CL E . fa U .Ct L......0 .D OJ E U') U') '"'0 C ro C . c ""0 c . I (f) (V') I ::J N .U 0. U rn 0...GJ +-J ..« CIJ r-i I 0. "'- U') 0 0') E • >.. -c 0 rn o.."+Q) CO C ... c +-J OJ ~ • -c ~ -E 0 CIJ ta fa II....

1- ftI U I- . ftJ . c ..e -c ~ e u. o I.

IUJ f/) <£ .......c - co ~ co 1co '15::...... UU')Q) c:: Q) c co N .~5U co ....n 1:i •• 1:i ""-' U OJ 1- c:: U') .""-' C c.0 0- U'} Q)~ C :J -Oc co 1:J -0 O'). co E Q) c o 1:i ::J U •• ..c .i:i :J C.(/) ~ c.n .E ro co ..c ct=Q)Q) 0') co . Ie C1J I- cu w Ll.0 10 . U .Zu> I .~ "'0 ""-'.- co ~ u en . .~ ~c: ~ 1..- C'Of-r-f EEc32 :..""-' (/) U o_ c . 0 (/) ~ ~ .b OJ ro o_ c o- o 1:i"'-'2 c ... E c cu fa C > .U'} ClJ ::s t:: u Q..n ~ OJ c ro L. ..c U "'-' "'-' "'0 co c Q) c.co o_ .. OJ ......_ ~ U'} s Q) c Q) Q) .0 Vl Q)- ~I 0 .n Q) ""-' c ::J ~ OJ c..>- c.n ~ .c OJ ..

.. '" o ~ ~ s: e c u cu I- I- ....... a...... .e >..o ..- •• . tii fa :s '" E E CI) .. C -c fa U o c .

caUl .m.Cl UE c OJ -(J) ~-o..c I-~> I 81m ro (J) U -cn:::J ...J.oL-1:: co. OJ ..J-J:J (/)~ B 1- :6_c (].. ...............' B o <J) -a cr > COL-.co co ..~ .. ... ...c QJe:..0 1- ro c~ co a '"i:::. OJ u OJ :J OJ ...OJ "'0 OJ en ...............

I- U U) E fa C > Q ::I: a. ::I: .

...Q) c ca .en (f) c .. 10 fI) '" C C >>.....~ (f) "'0 19 OJ 0.0 "'0 ro 0 CJ) 1~l ""-' .+-' 0 Q_ C -+-J .&-J (f) E OJ ......(f) Cl..U') 0 .. U) >{/) I- E CU """'--"" E ""-' tf) tf) 1..0 ::> (l) 1- ro . 0 .. tf) 0 N E 0 T"""I a. .:J +-' OJ OJ ..0 m 0 C u 0 0) C -c ro .

.-I-J . c::: OJ 0 1- tf)1- 0 Q) -'-' U OJ co :::J :c OJ U a C :::J Q) ~ (f) C'" ..Q \.(/) c ..4-J 1.. 2 (/) ""-' I- 0 c.- u . ::J \..OJ C ro - ""0 \...I4-J 0 "0 OJ ..1- co u .. c. I- en I 0.- ro S C]).c -I-J 1- co 1- cr (J) -I-J :::J CC 0 . "0 -I-J U) 0 ::J 1....4-J - c co OJ CJ) u 0 ....... E 0 I- ...-0 0 .c .Q OJ \..(]) 1- Cl.- e ro :::J (]J 4-J (J) .l- o.-I ::t:t: 0 0 :::J ..I- CJ) .c OJ U -I-J 0::: ....0 J:2 OJ -I-J 1- 0 .c 4-J ro OJ ...-I-J OJ 1- .c I ..I- ro - ..4-J cr :c 1c 0 c.. C .... > > 1~ (]J 1- J2 I J2 (f) OJ 01 (f) U C 0 co C OJ 011C 0 0 :L- 1- (]J E 0 ..c ..

.c .c 1- OJ U 0 C ...s:: . co S OJ C (J) -I-J ...E +-J U C OJ . 1- 0 "'0 c ro 1- OJ ._.!::! 0 Q) :J -I-J U} :J 1- 0 . "'0 ....._J 01 0 :E: OJ N ..E ...1- c l!) u Z fa CU Q CU '" 4-J .J2 >< co en U} u 1- a .c -I-J 01 ~ 5: ...- C OJ "'0 1....c -I-J OJ en .C .c OJ -I-J c rn U +-' (/) en .(]) ~ ~ ~ c 19 0..0.. rn 4-J (/) OJ 1- CLJ U Q) . ~ 2 « 01 OJ U} 0.0 U U C +-J +-J 0 2 c..- J2 "'0 1- eu :r: 0 Q) .. Q. .U) 0 0 C C 0 1- :J .c ...- -I-J 0 0 1- 1- . :J OJ 1- 0 +-J ~ C U en .

c Cu E 8 . Q. Q)e.l- c o 1(I) ~ C en In cu •• (/)+-J +-JQ) c e 0. :::J ..

... I- (/) I ~ '-' t- 0 U) C CL c U) .wa.. Cl ::J I....._ ~ I GJ GJ ~ 0 ~ Q. In --w - .. "'aJ "'C I0o-I m en .-c e ...........c en u u 0 u. GJ er "C en u -c ItS ra CD ::J C CIJ le ._ ..._ cu ta en I- >< 0 ttl ~ .-c U m m e m "'ClJ ~ . 0 ::J en 0 0 ..Q I.. l- ta U e ..cu :.E U ta U) l- >< -a cu IU .. 0 l- Ul to CLJ .c oW ._ '" GJ 0 0 en fa en fa cu fa Q1 .GJ cu D. e U l: .... OJ cv .. m t!' l- m Q1 I- (/) (/) O I._ m In U ll) ..~ U ::::I I .e ... 0 Q1 ..J ..c IlU C!J ra E ~ "'cu t) U :::s I- :QJ ....« U -< c:t U I- QJ .U l. cv .Q.1 to "'w 0 OD.c cv ta 0 m )....c e 0 0 U . ta Q1 u CL c -c In ... ... II) n:s ~ c: cu 0 " .

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->