Malloy´s HoverBike

[AngelLestat]

I really see future in this

This brings back star wars memories.

It seems at beginig it will be just to hover..

But I guess it can be implemented to really fly with good safe concerns, for example if the "bike" can stay in the air with 3 engines and carrying a parachute in your back so it can safe both (you and the bike).

Because it would not be safe if you left the bike fall.

Of course its range should be less than 150km

What everybody thinks? it has future?

[Majorjim!]

Hi! It's certainly cool looking.

The man speaking looked like someone was holding a gun to his head off camera though.. And what are they trying to sell? The drone or the concept of the hover bike?

The issue with these is no matter how much you cover the props they put out a huge downdraft, and the props and motors are very noisy. It's another 'off shoot' technology. It will never be mass transport. If it works it will just be another rich mans toy. A very expensive, cool toy.

Edited August 31, 2015 by Majorjim

[prophet_01]

Looks pretty good to me. I think it might benefit a lot from the growing market for drones with civilian purposes. Quad-copter designs are curently developed and improved to do post delivery, help with medical emergency and assist in maintenace tasks at big industrial facilities. Big companies are looking into those ideas and will very likely buy drones in large numbers.

The scale effects here will surely help this idea to become relatively cheap and reliable. I don't see why this can't reach the price of a high quality motorcycle at some point.

Efficiency is what I'm not rly sure about. The batteries of a full scale vehicle that is capable of transporting the pilot and maybe additional 20 kg should be quite heavy if they want to deliver that 150km range. Definitely too heavy to just fold it and put it in a bag that you could carry around

For the next decade or so it probably won't be more than a toy or sports equipment, but once it offers sufficient safety, efficency and comfort I can definitely imagine this to be a practical thing in big cities that suffer severe trafic problems.

Of course this is something that requires a completely new approach towards organizing and regulating urban traffic and I expect it to require a digital guidance system if used regulary and in larger numbers. With some kind of integreated heads up display, like it's already used for planes and even some cars, doesn't seem all that scifi.

I would buy one

[RainDreamer]

Potential? Well, yes, it has potential to be a great hover bike.

Market potential though? Pretty slim. It will likely require the user to take test to apply for a pilot license and such to operate, because it can fly, even if very low. It will need a lot of extra safety equipments, skills and training to use. It will be undoubtedly expensive. Etc and etc.

But since they are developing for the military, I can see a few being made for testing. It is up to their sale pitch, I guess.

[K^2]

I could not find anything in regs that clarifies whether ground effect is flight or not. In fact, FAA doesn't seem to define "flight", which is rather silly. So it's hard to tell whether ground effect bike would require flight certification.

On the other hand, I can totally see ground effect bike qualifying for FAR Part 103: Ultralight.

This part prescribes rules governing the operation of ultralight vehicles in the United States. For the purposes of this part, an ultralight vehicle is a vehicle that:

(a) Is used or intended to be used for manned operation in the air by a single occupant;

( Is used or intended to be used for recreation or sport purposes only;

© Does not have any U.S. or foreign airworthiness certificate; and

(d) If unpowered, weighs less than 155 pounds; or

(e) If powered:

(1) Weighs less than 254 pounds empty weight, excluding floats and safety devices which are intended for deployment in a potentially catastrophic situation;

(2) Has a fuel capacity not exceeding 5 U.S. gallons;

(3) Is not capable of more than 55 knots calibrated airspeed at full power in level flight; and

(4) Has a power-off stall speed which does not exceed 24 knots calibrated airspeed.

It should be possible to get that thing under 254lb. And power-off stall speed is basically zero, since a ground effect rotorcraft with a shot-out engine simple hovers to the ground.

Which leads us to 103.7.

(a) Notwithstanding any other section pertaining to certification of aircraft or their parts or equipment, ultralight vehicles and their component parts and equipment are not required to meet the airworthiness certification standards specified for aircraft or to have certificates of airworthiness.

( Notwithstanding any other section pertaining to airman certification, operators of ultralight vehicles are not required to meet any aeronautical knowledge, age, or experience requirements to operate those vehicles or to have airman or medical certificates.

© Notwithstanding any other section pertaining to registration and marking of aircraft, ultralight vehicles are not required to be registered or to bear markings of any type.

In other words, you wouldn't need so much as a motorcycle license. But there are other rules that limit where and when you'd be able to ride one. The short version, it'd have to be in unpopulated area, during daytime hours only, and with no passengers.

P.S. Rules in other countries differ. I'm not sure if JAA has an ultralight. One might need a Light Sport Aircraft certificate for one of these in Europe. And while that's a little easier to get than a full PPL, it's still a pilot's license, and it still takes a lot of flight hours.

Edited September 1, 2015 by K^2

[RainDreamer]

Well, that is interesting. I guess technology once again went faster than the legal framework.

[AngelLestat]

Hi! It's certainly cool looking.

The man speaking looked like someone was holding a gun to his head off camera though.. And what are they trying to sell? The drone or the concept of the hover bike?

The issue with these is no matter how much you cover the props they put out a huge downdraft, and the props and motors are very noisy. It's another 'off shoot' technology. It will never be mass transport. If it works it will just be another rich mans toy. A very expensive, cool toy.

The drone was created to serve for low scale testing purposes, but they sell it to fund the real bike.

About the noice, yeah, it will be a problem, but I was not saying that it has future as normal transport remplacement. No, just as recreative purpose, like ATVs or jetskis, etc.

I am not sure what kind of design it would need to be used close to public, someone can put the hand by accident on the blades.

Efficiency is what I'm not rly sure about. The batteries of a full scale vehicle that is capable of transporting the pilot and maybe additional 20 kg should be quite heavy if they want to deliver that 150km range. Definitely too heavy to just fold it and put it in a bag that you could carry around

It would use a normal fuel engine, not sure how they plain to control the thrust.

It should be possible to get that thing under 254lb. And power-off stall speed is basically zero, since a ground effect rotorcraft with a shot-out engine simple hovers to the ground.

Which leads us to 103.7.

In other words, you wouldn't need so much as a motorcycle license. But there are other rules that limit where and when you'd be able to ride one. The short version, it'd have to be in unpopulated area, during daytime hours only, and with no passengers.

Yeah, its dry weight is 105 kg, 254lb= 115kg

Here some extra details of the first model of 2 engines, the second model will use a quadrotor as the one we see in the low scale version.

---------------------------------------------------------

SPECIFICATIONS

THE SPECIFICATIONS BELOW ARE FOR THE ‘OLD’ BI-COPTER HOVERBIKE.

We will disclose the specifications for the new quad-based Hoverbike in the coming weeks.

Engine Type

Flat twin 4-stroke, one camshaft and 4-valves per cylinder, central balancer shaft

Engine Displacement

1170cc

Nominal Output @7500rpm

80KW

Cooling

Aircooled

Ignition

Electronic

Fuel System

Electronic intake pipe injection

Fuel tank capacity

without secondary tanks: 30L

with secondary tanks: 60L

Fuel Burn

0.5L/min / 30L/hr

Fuel Type

Regular Unleaded

Drive-shafts

Custom Carbon fiber

Gearbox

Custom 1.5:1 reduction

Propellers

2 x Oak with carbon fiber leading edge

Airframe

Carbon fiber with Kevlar reinforcement and foam core

Width: 1.3m

Length: 3m

Height: 0.55m

Dry Weight

105kg

Maximum takeoff weight

>270kg

Total Thrust

>295kg

Range

estimated 148km on primary tank

Airspeed Vne

(untested)

Altitude Static Hover

>9,800ft (estimated)

[Robotengineer]

Hi! It's certainly cool looking.

The man speaking looked like someone was holding a gun to his head off camera though.. And what are they trying to sell? The drone or the concept of the hover bike?

The issue with these is no matter how much you cover the props they put out a huge downdraft, and the props and motors are very noisy. It's another 'off shoot' technology. It will never be mass transport. If it works it will just be another rich mans toy. A very expensive, cool toy.

People ride motorcycles that are insanely loud, so I doubt the noise will be the thing that kills it.

[o Atomsk]

[Majorjim!]

People ride motorcycles that are insanely loud, so I doubt the noise will be the thing that kills it.

Me too. It will most likely be the spectacular danger coupled with the fact you wont really be able to use it anywhere where it would be useful.

[K^2]

Me too. It will most likely be the spectacular danger coupled with the fact you wont really be able to use it anywhere where it would be useful.

I take it you aren't familiar with concept of dirt bikes and quads. If it goes blazing fast over terrain that isn't safe to even walk over, you can bet your rear that there will be people screaming to get in line for it. If it makes a hell of a racket doing so, it's a bonus.

[Perry Apsis]

I think the best 20 seconds of my life, the worst 20 seconds of my life, and the last 20 seconds of my life could all fit within 30 seconds on a hoverbike.

[KerikBalm]

Well, that is interesting. I guess technology once again went faster than the legal framework.

Why should that be regulated any different than this:

The ones heavier than the limit are regulated differently than the ones under the limit.

FWIW, I think they will have a hard time getting under that limit. The engine will need to be pretty powerful to get out of ground effect, and the engines are often the heaviest part.

Doubling the wing size doesn't add that much weight, but doubling the engine power sure does.

Likewise here, I think to come in at the lowest weight and still get out of ground effect, they'll want bigger rotors... and basically just be helicopters.

They already have ultralight helicopters that do not require a licensce.

Maybe you don't think the regulations are good, but I don't see how its getting around them in any new way.

What can this technology do that the old technology couldn't, that should require new regulation?

[AngelLestat]

Yeah it should be allow it, but the difference with the vehicles you show, is that all of them can land if they have an engine problem.

Not sure if you will be able to do auto-rotation with this "bike" her blades are not very long, also if you do auto-rotation you will fall upside down due your body weight.

But well, I guess a simple parachute may be enoght to solve those problems

About manoeuvrability, any quadrotor has excelent handling, but yeah, you may have some crash, after all there is not fun without that possibility.

[FishInferno]

I

t probably cannot go higher then 1 meter. Or even 20cm from the ground.

If It can lift itself off the ground with its rotors, then it could fly a lot higher than a meter. this would probably be regulated though.

On the other hand, you wouldn't have to deal with traffic anymore:P

[VirtualCLD]

If It can lift itself off the ground with its rotors, then it could fly a lot higher than a meter. this would probably be regulated though.

On the other hand, you wouldn't have to deal with traffic anymore:P

As others have pointed out, it could only fly in ground effect. Get MD effect would only allow you fly a meter or two off the ground (depending on vehicle and rotor size). In that case, FAA jurisdiction (in the US at least) is not definitive. That being said, the I'm sure the FAA would like to have jurisdiction over it. Remember that hovercraft are not regulated as aircraft.

[AngelLestat]

As others have pointed out, it could only fly in ground effect. Get MD effect would only allow you fly a meter or two off the ground (depending on vehicle and rotor size). In that case, FAA jurisdiction (in the US at least) is not definitive. That being said, the I'm sure the FAA would like to have jurisdiction over it. Remember that hovercraft are not regulated as aircraft.

You are wrong.. this is not a hovercraft or other kind of ground effect.

At first it will fly at certain height due software limitations, but there are no physsics rules that will keep it on the ground. This thing will have a thrust of 3000 N with just a weight of 100 kg. So if you have 2 passengers which combined weight is 120 kg, you still have 800 N extra of force.

Edited September 4, 2015 by AngelLestat

[KerikBalm]

Yeah it should be allow it, but the difference with the vehicles you show, is that all of them can land if they have an engine problem.

Not sure if you will be able to do auto-rotation with this "bike" her blades are not very long, also if you do auto-rotation you will fall upside down due your body weight.

Whether or not it can auto rotate depends on if it can vary the pitch of the rotors. If it just varies the engine/motor torque and tilt of each of the 4 rotors (as it probably does like a standard quad copter), then it would be completely unflyable without power.

If the blades are variable pitch, a computerized "drone" autopilot could autorotate and vary the pitch to keep it descinding with the pilot right side up.

I had the impression that it was gasoline powered, but uses the standard quad copter technology... which uses electric motors for each rotor.

Is this thing a hybrid with an alternator?

Brushless electrci motors are very reliable, and if it has a little battery power storage, it could make a safe landing.

Heck, it could run the motors in reverse to generate power and slow the descent (sine it has no variable pitch, it would have to store power in the battery, whereas a helo stores the energy in the rotor, making it functionaly a flywheel)

You are wrong.. this is not a hovercraft or other kind of ground effect.

At first it will fly at certain height due software limitations, but there are no physsics rules that will keep it on the ground. This thing will have a thrust of 3000 N with just a weight of 100 kg. So if you have 2 passengers which combined weight is 120 kg, you still have 800 N extra of force.

Where are you getting these numbers from?

[AngelLestat]

Whether or not it can auto rotate depends on if it can vary the pitch of the rotors. If it just varies the engine/motor torque and tilt of each of the 4 rotors (as it probably does like a standard quad copter), then it would be completely unflyable without power.

If the blades are variable pitch, a computerized "drone" autopilot could autorotate and vary the pitch to keep it descinding with the pilot right side up.

I had the impression that it was gasoline powered, but uses the standard quad copter technology... which uses electric motors for each rotor.

Is this thing a hybrid with an alternator?

Brushless electrci motors are very reliable, and if it has a little battery power storage, it could make a safe landing.

Heck, it could run the motors in reverse to generate power and slow the descent (sine it has no variable pitch, it would have to store power in the battery, whereas a helo stores the energy in the rotor, making it functionaly a flywheel)

Ok you are right.. I forget about the pitch.

I am not sure either about the exact energy setup, I know that it will use gasoline and the motors are measure in cc, so I imagine that all motors are ICE.

But not sure how they plan to control the thrust if is like that, a pitch mechanism may work, but not sure if they have space for that.

ICE + Pitch sound like it needs a lot of weight and space.

Hybrid engine may work, but we also have a weight concern.

But if they are smart enoght, I guess is possible to find a good solutions to the safety, range and energy source.

Where are you getting these numbers from?

In the first page I show the details of the first prototype, they will change it for 4 engines for the second, not sure what other changes will have.

You can see it in their page too.

http://www.hover-bike.com/MA/the-hoverbike/how-you-can-own-it/

--------------EDIT------------------

Forget what I said, almost all our answers are explained in the FAQ section.

Edited September 4, 2015 by AngelLestat

[KerikBalm]

Well, to qualify as an ultralight in the US, like the Mosquito ultralight helicopter

http://www.innovator.mosquito.net.nz/mbbs2/specs.asp

It will need a total fuel capacity of 5 US gallons or less - luckily the FAA determined the speed limit did not apply to helicopters (and presuably any other VTOL craft).

That means less than 15 liters of fuel.

Which means this hoverbike will have to carry less than 30 minutes of fuel at their stated fuel consumption rate.

Here are the relevant regulations in the USA (I can't find any reliable source for the Helicopter exemption for the speed limit)

http://www.ultralighthomepage.com/FAR.part103.html

...For the purposes of this part, an ultralight vehicle

is a vehicle that:

(1) .. is used by a single occupant .... for recreation or sport purposes only... and ... of unpowered, weighs less than 155 pounds; or ... if powered ... weighs less than 254 pounds empty weight, excluding floats and safety devices which are intended for deployment in a potentially catastrophic situation;

(2) Has a fuel capacity not exceeding 5 U.S. gallons;

(3) Is not capable of more than 55 knots calibrated airspeed at full

power in level flight; and

...

ultralight vehicles and their component parts and equipment are not required to meet the airworthiness certification standards specified for aircraft or to have certificates of airworthiness. ... operators of ultralight vehicles are not required to meet any aeronautical knowledge, age, or experience requirements to operate those vehicles ... ultralight vehicles are not required to be registered or to bear markings of any type.

...

No person may operate any ultralight vehicle in a manner that creates a hazard to other persons or property.

No person may allow an object to be dropped from an ultralight vehicle if such action creates a hazard to other persons or property.

No person may operate an ultralight vehicle except between the hours of sunrise and sunset.

Each person operating an ultralight vehicle ... shall yield the right-of-way to all aircraft.

No person may operate an ultralight vehicle in a manner that creates a collision hazard with respect to any aircraft.

Powered ultralights shall yield the right-of-way to unpowered ultralights.

No person may operate an ultralight vehicle over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons.

...

No person may operate an ultralight vehicle within an airport traffic area, control zone, airport radar service area, terminal control area, or positive control area unless that person has prior authorization from the air traffic control facility having jurisdiction over that airspace.

...

No person may operate an ultralight vehicle in prohibited or restricted areas unless that person has permission from the using or controlling agency, as appropriate.

...

No person may operate an ultralight vehicle except by visual reference with the surface.

...

No person may operate an ultralight vehicle in areas designated in a Notice to Airmen

...

No person may operate an ultralight vehicle when the flight visibility or distance from clouds is less than that in the table found below.

<30 minutes of fuel (and no autorotation or gliding capabilities when fuel runs out) would be a serious limitation.

This thing is a fuel guzzler as far as ultralights are concerned.

As it is, their prototype is coming in at 105 kg, if the switch to a quad copter design + addition of basics like protective shrounds around the rotors, adequate harness attachments/seatbelts, etc add a mere 23 pounds (~10.5 kg), then it won't qualify as an ultralight in the USA, and it will require an airworthiness certificate, inspections, registration, and a pilot's license.

No cruising around the city anyway, but especially not as an ultralight, especially not at low altitudes. No flying at night or when its foggy, no flying for longer than ~25 minutes

We'll see what the final price comes in at, but I'm not convinced that this thing will be simpler than a basic helicopter (like the mosquito).

For the "commercial" uses that people use helicopters for (like ranchers, although IMO that is over the top and not needed), I think an autogyro is actually a much better option.

Autogyro's are great, they are always "autorotating", they are simple, they can land vertically, and if they have an electric pre-rotator can take off in almost no distance... some with variable pitch can even do vertical "jump takeoffs"

They can't hold a hover like a helicopter, but they are VTOL, they do easily qualify as ultralights, and they do have a lot more endurance than that gasoline hog will get.

... and they are stable and don't need a computer to control them.

[K^2]

Ground-effect aircraft will "auto-rotate" on inertia of the blades alone long enough to settle down, even without variable collective pitch. (Yes, I realize that this isn't technically auto-rotation, but it serves the same purpose.)

And I have no idea what you mean about speed limits. The 55 knots is more than generous enough. I doubt that Malloy's could top that. Or do you mean the power-off stall speed? That, indeed, does not apply to rotorcraft. The aforementioned auto-rotation condition applies instead.

The bottom line, from perspective of FAA, is whether the aircraft can be landed safely in case of engine failure. So long as there is a way to do so, they are happy to grant you an exemption even if you don't fit the exact letter of the regs. Martin's Jetpack is a good example. They've substituted an emergency parachute for glide/auto-rotate capability. And as I've indicated above, there is no reason why Malloy's wouldn't be capable of safe landing on engine failure, unless you're doing something stupid.

Now, it'd be pretty easy to crash on power failure, by simply fighting natural descent and trying to keep going at full speed. You'll still descend gently enough, but that won't help you much if your stands catch on the ground going 40 knots. On the other hand, that's not terribly different from any rotorcraft. Just because they can auto-rotate, doesn't mean they'll do that without pilot's help. In case of quad-like ground-effect craft, proper procedure in event of engine failure will be hard pitch away from direction of travel. That will rapidly kill the ground speed while also supplementing lift, allowing gentle landing. You'd have less than a second to react, but since pitching "back" when you start dropping should be normal thing to do even during normal operation, as it recovers altitude faster than throttling up, I don't expect it will be particularly difficult to land safely.

Edited September 7, 2015 by K^2

[AngelLestat]

In addiction to K2 words, if you read the FAQ, it said that the "bike" will come with parachutes (maybe 4 small parachutes in the corners, and the pilot may carry one in the back.

This thing has 4 engines, and I guess it would be able to flight (or descend slowly) with just 3.

The pilot does not need to learn the autorotation procedures.

Also not sure why you said that autogyro is always autorotating? To autorotate you need to invert the pitch (if you are high enoght)

The autogyro is more dangerous close to people than this "bike" will be. In the FAQ said that the rotors will come with a safety mesh to avoid hands or thing big enoght to crash with the blades.

My only doubt it is what would be the best engine type selection and energy source configuration. But even with just 20 min, I think it might be a lot of fun and even usefull for other activities.

[K^2]

Also not sure why you said that autogyro is always autorotating? To autorotate you need to invert the pitch (if you are high enoght)

Autogyro is always auto-rotating. There is no power to the main rotor. That's the whole point. And no, you don't invert the pitch for the auto-rotation. Merely reduce it, so that the driving section does not stall. You might benefit from reading Wikipedia's article on auto-rotation. I seem to recall that it was pretty detailed.

[AngelLestat]

Ok, now I understand how autogyro works, I dint notice that in the video he take off with high wind in front. So it only use the back propeller to takeoff and the top blades work as a wing.

But about autorotation pitch I am right, after all I was the first (I guess) to comment on autorotation in the forum.

The pitch needs to be negative to keep harvesting energy (at the same time than lift) until you really need it when you are close to the ground, so you inverted again.

Of course if your engine stop a few meters above the ground, then you dont invert the pitch, just land with the blade energy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autorotation

[K^2]

But about autorotation pitch I am right, after all I was the first (I guess) to comment on autorotation in the forum.

The pitch needs to be negative to keep harvesting energy (at the same time than lift) until you really need it when you are close to the ground, so you inverted again.

No, no, no. Pitch always remains positive. Now, a helicopter can perform a collective flare, where pitch is dramatically increased right before hitting the ground, which does allow for softer landing. But even on aircraft with fixed pitch, such as majority of autogyros, it always remains positive for the duration of auto-rotation.

It might seem counter-intuitive that propeller keeps rotating in the same direction despite air flow direction changing and pitch remaining positive, but it is indeed so.

Here is an image that illustrates how it works.

The three sections correspond to stalled, driving, and driven regions from Wiki respectively. The w vector shows relative wind. It's more vertical in stalled region because blade moves slower close to the hub. The actual pitch of the blade is roughly constant throughout, but the angle of attack changes because angle of relative wind changes. In the driving region, drag is very small, and relative wind is pretty vertical. Lift is much higher than drag here, so the net force on the blade actually forces it to rotate forward. This is similar to how the glider keeps going forward despite maintaining positive angle of attack. In contrast, while driven portion actually generates more lift, it also generates significantly more drag, and because the relative wind is more horizontal here, the net force ends up against motion of the blade. Torque on driving and driven portions of the blade ends up balancing each other out, providing constant rate of revolution of the main rotor during descent.