https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soxxPyaAT1k
Who's trying it?
I know one of you genius bastards are trying it.
How's your progress? Post your plans! Help us degenerates understand...
It doesn't have enough power to be useful (he even says himself that he had to not include any control systems because it would be too heavy) and it's a dumb idea to begin with. Not useful in any way and pointless to make,
>>990046
Just use bigger engines or bigger propellers then. Think inside the box, man.
>>990072
Just use a helicopter.
>>990072
>it's too heavy to get enough worthwhile lift
>just add heavier components lolz
Please go back to /b/
>>990075
>engines can't lift their own weight
How do helicopters work, retard? All this is is an upside down chinook.
>>990080
We're talking about a light as fuck hoverbike design that fits between your legs and has no control features here, dumbass.
It can't be as big as a fucking pick-up truck.
>>990081
Why not?
>>990082
Did you even watch the video?
>>990083
Yes.
>>990084
Watch it again.
Pay attention to how he struggles to attempt to control it because of the weight this time.
>>990086
Controllability isn't related to size as much as you think. At the very least, it's worth a shot to try and make a bigger one. Worst case you crash and die, no big deal.
>>990088
What's the best case though? Why bother making one of these at all? Sure it's a bit of fun, Colin did it because he got paid to do it and he likes to invent things. But really, it's been done now so who cares. it's not practical, it's not cheap and for "just a bit of fun" it's not worth it in the end.
>>990091
>What's the best case though?
You have a fuckin skybike, ride on the clouds.
>>990102
You mean you have something that will soon be illegal due to regulations.
>>990104
Then you have a rad skybike chase where you do flips and shit over cops on their own skybikes. You aren't making a good case for sitting on your ass, I'm gonna go put a turbo on a weedwhacker Right Now.
>>990004
>Who's trying it?
I want to. I'm very confident I know how to do it right, too. But I'm a lazy fuck and probably won't ever get around to it.
>>990075
Bigger props actually would help considerably - provided they're coupled to an appropriately-sized PSRU.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disk_loading#Power_required
>>990081
>It can't be as big as a fucking pick-up truck.
Sure it can.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Lackner_HZ-1_Aerocycle
But you'll want something a bit more effective than kinesthetic control (flying by weight-shift) if you make it that big. Also you must keep it below 254 lbs empty in order to comply with Part 103 rules.
>>990104
>Soon be
It already is illegal to fly ultralight aircraft near and into clouds, as well as over populated areas, or inside controlled airspace without clearance. It'd still be fun as fuck, though.
>>990091
>Why bother making one of these at all?
>it's been done now so who cares
>it's not practical
>it's not cheap
>it's not worth it in the end
>the end.
- yup, and we wouldn't want to frighten the horses, would we now? Lotta pish, Global Personal Transport Corp Inc. go home.
What I dont understand, if he was getting enough lift to get both him and that off the ground, arguing that adding control would be 'too much weight' is near nonsensical. The amount of extra lift needed would be neglible, not do I understand how any 'inventor' worth a fuck could get it to that stage, then forget it entirely. Especially when hes being funded for it anyway. Or maybe Ford backed him more to stop. Odd.
>>990113
Yes I understand the need for innovation, but if you can't see this anything other than a joy rider that will barely work, then you're an idiot.
As for the control issue, did you watch the video? He can barely get it off the ground, in the making of vidoes he shows him testing how much weigh these motors can lift then can just get his body weight off the ground, sure the control system might only add a little weight, but that little weight plus the reduction of lift you got from devoting some of the thrust into control would be enough to bring it down.
>>990116
haven't watched the 'making of' videos till now, desu - gonna check this out, but either marginally bigger motors/blades, sorted - as said, I find it odd, getting the basic principle obv. figured, then giving up at the point he did? and esp. so for the reasons stated - need to watch the rest 1st before arguing further tho..
>>990136
The reason he started was to get paid by a car company (ford I think? I can't remember) and to make a youtube video. Why continue when you have achieved those goals.
The WASP project was kind of neat-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXNNc_HFodI
>>990113
I don't think you understand the kind of man Colin Furze is. He's a lunatic who rides 2-stroke-powered mobility scooters at 60 mph and has his own fucking wall-of-death. To him, the fact that it's completely out of control whenever airborne is probably a selling point.
I'm pretty confident with a bit more effort it could be fairly controllable.
It would never "fly", it would only be a ground effect vehicle, but so what?
If you could get a bit more power out of it, I would bet that a gyroscope/reaction wheel setup could be beneficial.
>>990165
>It would never "fly"
That's really just a matter of making more power (or using larger rotors). The Hiller Flying Platform was capable of flying out of ground effect, albeit only marginally and it was somewhat dangerous since the machine had no way of autorotating in the event of engine failure.
Seems rad as shit. I don't think it looks like it'd be that difficult to improve on the design and make it more efficient and more maneuverable especially if you were a little lighter than this guy.
I agree he probably just stopped because Ford didn't care to fund it any further. There's a lot more that could be done with this machine. And even though it might not be super useful at first, that's a backasswards way of looking at it. The wright brothers planes were pointless until other people refined them.
>>990194
Yeah, lets keep developing this thing. Oh look, ITS A FUCKING HELICOPTER. What is it with people thinking that multiple rotors are somehow better?
>>990258
I don't see how someone can logically look at that hoverbike and think "OH ITS A HELICOPTER! RETARDS!" It's a helicopter the same way a scooter is a car.
The quest for flying vehicles (practical or otherwise) will never end, whether it's a flying car, a flying bike, a flying skateboard, or flying shoes.
Look at these "hover"boards what were all the rage. They aren't cheap (at least the ones that don't explode). They aren't practical. People would do better buying a skateboard. But that didn't stop them from eslling like hotcakes.
>>990004
If you watch his videos you can see that he has problems hovering at all with his weight on it and then he has to put all of his attention to keeping it steady. You would need a way to get forwards momentum, i.e. another propeller, but the two existing propellers couldn't carry that extra weight. Seems like a design dead on birth.
>>990264
Why do you assume that the limitations of those propellers mean anything? That's like saying it's impossible to haul a boat because you saw a video with someone trying and failing to pull one uphill in a compact car.
>>990258
But I need a speeder bike in my life
>>990165
This dude right here is on the money.
A reaction wheel setup could be sufficient to add stability control without weighting it down too much or diverting precious thrust.
Heavy reaction wheels in slow rotation can be substituted with fairly light wheels at high enough rotational speed.
Just include an automatic "liftoff procedure" that spins them up before leaving the ground and you're good to go (and while we're there, a sonar to stop the hover bike from rising up too high would be quite a nice safety feature, I guess)
>>990258
>What is it with people thinking that multiple rotors are somehow better?
Quadcopters are more agile than helicopters.
>>990264
>You would need a way to get forwards momentum, i.e. another propeller
>i.e.
Surely you meant "e.g."
Another prop isn't necessary. What is variable pitch?
>>990279
>A reaction wheel setup could be sufficient to add stability control without weighting it down too much or diverting precious thrust.
That's the dumbest idea in this entire thread.
>>990261
Ultralight aircraft have never really sold "like hotcakes." And as cool as these new ones are, they aren't going to trigger a massive ultralight revolution or anything like that. Especially once people realize that they have to drive out to an unpopulated area to use them legally.
>>990286
Bullshit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PptMrBFAO-A
>>990113
On the internet everything is a conspiracy
It's quite easy to build a decent one actually.
What you need: A few of those compact turbines used in RC jets. Connect them to a lightweight generator, Drive the props with brushless DC motors, they have absurd power to weight ratios provided you can supply the energy to them. I would suggest 4 motors incase of failure and twin contra rotating props make it easier to control.
You would want some batteries so it could fly for a few minutes incase of a turbine failure. May as well add some thrusters for forward movement since you already have energy for electric motors. Some rotary or lightweight sportbike motors may have high enough power to weight ratios to replace the turbines.
>>990004
>Who's trying it?
Not me, it is completely worthless technology. Its been done in the past on several occasions and always proved to be one of the worst, most inefficient designs you can come up with.
Thus far, the best most efficient design for hovering flight technology is the single rotor helicopter. Which there are millions of all over the world being used for everything from recreation to military. They range from ultralights you can fit in a backpack (literally Inspector Gadget-sized) to the monstrous Mi-26 that weighs 31 tons.
The key word here is, "efficiency". When you put the cargo on top of the rotors, add multiple rotors, the efficiency drops significantly. That means the fuel-to-lift ratio is low. You can't lift as much weight and you can't travel nearly as far. You also lose agility and stability by a great margin. This is why quadcopters must have on-board stabilization.
>>990111
>Sure it can.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Lackner_HZ-1_Aerocycle
That's a helicopter built upside down.
>>990104
The laws are already in place.
>>990303
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PptMrBFAO-A
lol That's fucking crazy
Weight over props makes about as much sense as this image.
>>990345
But, they are already legal to fly. It is a matter of weight. You can build anything you like to fly and not have a license or have it registered so long as it is under x amount of weight and carrying no more than 5 gallons of fuel.
People already do this. Their only legal restrictions are those that have been listed ITT already.
Here /diy/.
>>>/sci/8036691
This is /sci/'s take on this.
Verdict: retarded idea
I think he basically built a hovercraft without the skirt.
>>990377
Correct, it never gets out of ground effect.
Huge hoverbike fan.
100 mile range on this pic? Yes pls.
I think they use BMW motorcycle engines or something.
Wonderful idea, just needs to be made safer.
>>990046
Isn't the lack of 'proper' controls the best part of it?
The whole lean-to-direct thing is what makes it interesting to me, honestly
>>990354
>>>/sci/8036691
- aayyy - Autism, The Post. Those fucks couldn't agree what planet theyre on, they make /diy/ look positively productive.
>FOR THE LAST FUCKING TIME
>I KNOW MULTIROTORS ARE LESS EFFICIENT THAN HELICOPTERS
>BUT THEY CAN DO SOME THINGS MORE EASILY AND CHEAPER THAN A HELICOPTER
>LIKE LAND IN A PARKING SPACE NEAR A FIVE YEAR OLD CHILD WITHOUT CUTTING HER HEAD OFF
>NOT NEEDING A PILOT
>AND NOT COSTING A QUARTER OF A MILLION DOLLARS
- kek.
>>990411
No. No no no. If you don't have proper controls you'll never get it to go faster than a skateboard on a slight incline. Making it ultimately useless. If it can't do, at minimum, 30-40MPH in the air, a bicycle is more useful.
>>990431
Seriously this. It would have to be fly by wire, or fly by seat rather.
I grant you that leaning would be very natural to control it, but that can't be done safely and simply because humans have no evolutionary basis in controlling a hover bike. The closest we got Is staying balanced, and you won't be able to respond quick enough to going out of your flight envelope at ~0 feet to stop you from eating shit. (see >>990111
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Lackner_HZ-1_Aerocycle )
I guess you could go a bit smaller than pic related if you want to use ground effect... Which seems like 4x the size of the hoverbike? So maybe you can get away with something just twice as big as it is now for it to have a reasonable amount of thrust and flight time?
>>990004
>suicide.mov
I like the idea and design, problem is if he were to be 30 ft off the ground and that thing tips upside down.
>>990425
This, why can't people understand this?
The idea of comparing it to a helicopter is completely silly. You can't build a goddamn helicopter in your backyard, this you can, it might not be cheap, but it sure as hell ain't a quarter million
>>990473
it sorta is a helicopter though.
Just because it isnt fancy doesnt make it any less the same.
>but it sure as hell ain't a quarter million
That is like saying a toyota isnt a car because it doesn't cost the same as a lamborghini..
>>990344
>That's a helicopter built upside down.
Who's to say the hoverbike isn't? Seems completely arbitrary.
Helicopters have cyclic control. These hoverbikes use other means. That's the distinction I'm drawing.
>>990354
/sci/ doesn't understand the concept of "fun." Sure, the machine isn't practical, but neither is a wingsuit or a unicycle.
>>990404
I wish the guy that built that would HTFU and fly it already. It seems completely airworthy and even has a complete set of controls (unlike Colin Furze's version), yet he won't even fly it untethered. He's (seemingly) a good engineer, but a massive fucking pussy.
>>990351
>Their only legal restrictions are those that have been listed ITT already.
Not entirely. It also may only have one seat, and cannot go faster than 55 knots in level flight.
>>990411
Yeah, kinesthetic controls are supposedly extremely intuitive. It's like a flying Segway, in a sense.
>>990431
>No. No no no. If you don't have proper controls you'll never get it to go faster than a skateboard on a slight incline.
The Williams X-jet used the same fucking control methods, yet it could reach 60 mph. Your argument is invalid.
Really needed a skirt to make it worth while and fins to direct flow/steer.
>>990482
What was the turning radius on the X-jet? not small, I would guess. Control surfaces or directed thrust help with that.
>>990473
You most definitely CAN build a helicopter in your backyard, there are even kits.
Ain't cheap, but neither is Collin's abomination, each of those engines is well over $1k
>>990478
My point is that people are saying it's worthless to even consider making these, simply because helicopters already exist. Which is absurd, because this is something a /diy/ person could actually make, with a reasonable budget. They can't however make a helicopter because the cost is so much higher and legality is much more complex.
>>990441
>and you won't be able to respond quick enough to going out of your flight envelope at ~0 feet to stop you from eating shit.
Bullshit. People are doing flips and shit with those flyboards. There's plenty of control to be had. The main limitation here is thrust - none of these contraptions have the thrust to recover from an upset without losing a considerable amount of altitude or smacking into the ground (yet).
Well, I can tell that the guy from that /sci/ thread is posting in this thread and may even be the OP of this thread.
Dude, /sci/ told you pretty hard why this won't work right. It isn't about "fun". "Fun" won't get you what you want this to do. Lift efficiency however, will get you what you want.
Seriously though you are literally all, "just put better engines on it!" It really doesn't work like that for this type of design.
The biggest problem with all this stuff is flight time efficiency due to human beings being pretty heavy. The smaller the device the shorter the flight time. The more improper the device is designed for lift efficiency the shorter the flight time.
Take this thing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEDrMriKsFM
It is pretty awesome, but will never have practical uses at this scale simply because it will never fly for a usable amount of time. Sure, it will be "fun", but that simply doesn't make it fly longer.
The only way these things will be any good is if they are fueled by magic, literally.
>>990498
People DIY helicopters for cheap all the time.
>>990521
>The only way these things will be any good is if they are fueled by magic
does a miniture nuclear reactor count as magic?
>>990549
Yes
>>990444
>I like the idea and design, problem is if he were to be 30 ft off the ground and that thing tips upside down.
this is the problem with using weight-shifting control.
also we note: those carbon fiber props he broke a few of while learning to keep his balance,,, cost about $500 each.
This is the reason I suggested in another thread: if you were building something like this, you would want to use gas-fuel engines for 80-90% of the lifting power, and then use electric engines for control. Gas engines don't respond to throttle changes fast enough for stabilization use, but electric motors do--so this allows you to use an electronic stabilization system (pic related).
>>990482
I agree completely. But honestly, I can't blame him at all.
It's by far the best hoverbike design I've ever seen. Look, so few parts! And the thing would be ridiculously easy to mass produce if he doesn't change the design or parts list very much.
However, wouldn't you be terrified? Do you remember the first time you got behind a wheel? Scary as fuck. And the likelihood someone is going to die on one of those hoverbikes is literally %100. Lots of legal hurdles.
My only complaint is I think the seat should be lower, so the center of gravity is lower.
That would probably be a massive engineering challenge though.
Besides.... people still haven't invested in him enough.
He's not even close to being paid by investors enough to warrant any respectable engineers time. He's nowhere near the donation goal he asked.
So obviously he's running behind.
The guy that built the JB-9 jetpack also needs recognition, that's the closest thing to legit jetpacks I've seen. A fucking TEN MINUTE fight time
>>990649
>A fucking TEN MINUTE fight time
So, still nothing. All the other, stuff in single-personal-flight vehicles is in that range of time and all are worthless as it seems.
>>990647
Where was the video of that working? Still just the RC model?
>Do you remember the first time you got behind a wheel?
Yeah, 5yo driving a 3-wheeler. Never really thought about being scared of anything.
>Lots of legal hurdles.
No more than anything else. The laws are already in place for personal injury and such.
>>990622
I take it you've never flown a helicopter or even an RC helicopter before? Fuel engines respond really well.
>>990549
>does a miniture nuclear reactor count as magic?
No, but the shielding you'd need to prevent death would prevent you from getting off the ground. Thus, it still wouldn't work.
>>990668
Dude, ten minutes flight time is AMAZING. Most video games with jetpacks that have fuel limitations usually only last a minute. The jump jet tests decades ago only had a few seconds of fuel, the JB-9 is almost an order of magnitude improvement in a few decades with no taxpayer funding!
The JB-9 is amazing.
Driving a 4 wheeler isn't FLYING, by the way.
No idea where the vids are, they aren't that interesting.
>>990622
My hybrid drive system reeee
>>990486
>What was the turning radius on the X-jet?
Zero... it could hover.
>Control surfaces or directed thrust help with that.
THE ENTIRE FUCKING THING is directed thrust. Do you seriously not understand that aircraft bank to turn? That they use their main source of lift for centripetal force?
>>990549
IF a nuclear-powered VTOL could fly at all, it could pretty much fly forever. BUT, nuclear reactors have abysmal power-to-weight ratios. It wouldn't even get off the ground.
>>990072
I wonder if a turbocharged rotary engine would have a higher power to weight ratio than what he's using.
>>990732
A two-stroke with a tuned pipe is pretty hard to beat, but a turbo rotary might potentially do it. But in any case, it likely wouldn't be nearly as turnkey.
>>990046
Add another prop or two, and you'll be able to lift much more.
>>990729
extension cords.
>>990729
Nuclear reactors have amazing power-to-weight ratio, it's the power density that sucks ass.
>>990838
The yanks and russians put them in planes for a while, main problem was that they had about 12t of lead around them and it was still kind of a bad thing to be around.
That and if the fucker falls out of the sky, its just a bad thing for everyone underneath it.
>>990696
>ten minutes flight time is AMAZING
It still sucks balls.
>No idea where the vids are, they aren't that interesting.
Because there aren't any.
>>990004
Too inefficient. Just DIY up a real helicopter that can get out of ground effect. Better yet, just buy one.
This is like those old tanks with legs threads we used to have. Anyone remember the autist that sperged out so hardcore in those threads? It was almost sad telling him that legged tanks are a shit idea that need to stay in anime.
>>990893
FUCK YOU AND FUCK YOUR NORMIE FRIENDS THIS IS FOURCHAN AND IT STAYS THAT WAY
the fucking legged tanks tho, they are really cool and they never implemented the idea in real life just bcz shit is expensive and needs a lot of coding to be done and there is no real coders in the military since most of them are working for nasa and shit
What about Halbach motors? Brushless electric motors that get something like 5HP:1lb power-weight ratio - is that light enough to allow for some batteries?
https://patents.google.com/patent/CN1645713A/en?q=halbach,H02P6%2f001&q=motor
>>990893
Illuminati pls go. We all know that you know walking tanks will be your downfall.
>>990909
Nigga the code is the fucking EASY part. The hard part is actually fucking lifting 65 tons with four arms and everything required to drive them. That shit doesn't exist and the square-cube law won't let it exist. You wanna come up with a legged tank and are so sure it can be done then show your math and prove it.
>>990981
>allow for some batteries
Not in hoverbike formfactor. The Hirobo's HX-1 electric helicopter seems to be a good contender, but it is still a no-show from what I can find. The Volocopter VC200 on the other hand is flying, but battery weight keeps its flight time rather short. EHang 184 MegaDrone quadcopter taxi is still a no-show as well, there's only CGI videos of it online.
Batteries vs liquid fuel isn't even a competition. Fuel out performs batteries in lift efficiency every time. This is due directly to battery weight for power density/energy density. Supercapacitors are getting close to batteries in terms of energy density by weight and are 100s of times better for power density. Once they are lighter than batteries and their energy density is right they should be able to be used to extend ranges for electric flying vehicles a great deal. Though, they may never exceed actual fuel.
All in all, the hoverbike style of vehicle is a real performance hog that eats up lift, energy, and fuel at great expense.
>>990004
Just add some electric gimbals, 2 arduinos and some gyroscopes and you can control the damn thing.
>>991023
Then suddenly it is too heavy to lift properly. you'd need to lose weight and fly naked to make up for it.
>>991023
With what actuators fuckfence?
>arduino - 2 grams
>six axis gyroscope - 1 gram
>high torque servomotor/stepper - several pounds
>power source - 1 to 5 pounds
you see how this is a fucking problem. You're not slapping RC aircraft components on this shit and you wildly overestimate the thrust you have to fuck with and carry parts on.
>>991026
>actuators
Yeah that what I meant by electric gimbals, sorry I don't know the exact word.
>wildly overestimate the thrust you have to fuck with and carry parts on.
It shouldn't take more a few grams and a few milliamps to actually rotate left/right/up/down a rotor, especially if you are well lined up with it.
Agreed, more speed/weight of the blades equal more torque, but come on, it's not that much.
There is a guy with a flying "hoverboard" that went 2200m out at sea a week ago, and you're telling me you can't rotate a fan ?
>>991025
Like 2 arduinos and 8 150g pistons with 15N of force are gonna make a difference.
>>991022
This guy's shit is heavier that what you would have to do to get a hovering bike.
>>991033
>This guy's shit is heavier that what you would have to do to get a hovering bike.
Yup, but the design, with weight under the props, the positioning of the props, and prop size give it a much better lift efficiency than a hover bike design.
>it's not that much.
It is a great deal actually.
>There is a guy with a flying "hoverboard" that went 2200m out at sea a week ago, and you're telling me you can't rotate a fan ?
That's something completely different. It uses 4 turbojets which use Jet A1 kerosene, not normal props. The instant you take that tech and make it into a hoverbike formfactor the lift efficiency tanks and you go from ten minutes of flight time to barely any flight time and less cargo weight allowed. Not only that, but the hoverboard itself won't get very much more flight time over ten minutes.
>>990838
>Nuclear reactors have amazing power-to-weight ratio
No, they don't. Internal combustion is far superior in terms of thrust-to-weight.
>it's the power density that sucks ass.
Yes, that too.
>>990981
Even if the motors were completely weightless, batteries would still be too heavy to allow for a significant flight time.
>>991023
For fuck's sake, just put a steering vane under one (or both) of the rotors and rig it mechanically to the handlebars. No need to overcomplicate things.
>This guy's shit is heavier that what you would have to do to get a hovering bike.
No, it isn't. Both the Malloy hoverbike and the Aerofex (pic related) are heavier, and I strongly suspect Furze's hoverbike is too.
>>991071
Furze's is lighter, but that isn't a proper hoverbike since you can't do really anything with it except crash. That's do to no skid bars, no steering, and not enough lift to clear enough ground to steer it in any manner properly. Adding any of that stuff will instantly put it over the weight limit of the lift efficiency to even lift off.
The only way he might be able to add proper steering without screwing up lift efficiency is to make the entire thing out of titanium. The metal weights more but you can make it much thinner while retaining strength. That would lower the overall weight.
Still though, that is just a bandaid for a bad design in the first place. Hoverbikes are just the wrong way to go about things.
>>991044
That thing is do fucking retarded, why would anyone ever want that?
>>991044
>The instant you take that tech and make it into a hoverbike formfactor the lift efficiency tanks and you go from ten minutes of flight time to barely any flight time and less cargo weight allowed.
Uhhhh.... wat? That makes no sense.
A "hoverbike" sorta implies a larger vehicle than a "hoverboard." In both cases, the vehicle must lift a "payload" of one human being, so the smaller, lighter vehicle will fundamentally have a higher payload fraction and therefore a lower fuel fraction and endurance.
Look at the Williams X-Jet. It's a much larger and heavier (jet-lift type) vehicle than the Flyboard Air, well into "hoverbike" territory, and has fuel for over 30 minutes of flight. If this example is any indication, the actual trend is the exact opposite of what you're suggesting.
>>990668
>I take it you've never flown a helicopter or even an RC helicopter before? Fuel engines respond really well.
Yea but for a stabilization system you really want the actuators (whatever kind you use) to respond as fast as possible to throttle changes, because it's not difficult or expensive to build (or buy) a gyro board that can perform corrections 500+ times a second.
Brushless electric motors can respond way faster to 'throttle' changes than gas engines can.
Consider a gas engine and a motor spinning at 5000 rpms:
For a brushless motor, the minimum throttle response time is the time delay between two pulses. A typical motor might have 15 pulses per turn, and so the time between pulses is .0008 seconds.
For a gasoline piston engine--assuming a 4-stroke engine--it only has a power stroke every 2 rotations, or once every .024 seconds.
In the time that the 4-stroke engine takes to complete one power stroke, the brushless motor will have gone through ~30 pulses.
And each of those pulses in that brushless motor can speed the motor up OR slow it down with equal force; the gas engine can speed up but has no "braking" ability to even compare to.
What about a jet engine? Well two problems:
1--turbine engines tend to have typical operating RPMs that are pretty high (usually 90-95% of the max RPMs) and the spinning mass alone resists any quick RPM changes
2--where you gonna get a gas turbine with decent fuel consumption? There really aren't any at all on the consumer market; all these hobby jets suck fuel like mad because they only got 1 compression stage. AGM-86 turbofans { https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-86_ALCM } work great but cost ~$500K each and have ITAR restrictions. There's similar engines made in Europe and Russia, but with similar prices and sales restrictions.
>>993073
Collective pitch control could give a gas motor quick thrust control, and if you do a tandem like in op, that could also give you yaw control.
>>992483
>Williams X-Jet
>>>/x/
It was utter shit. Those calculations where not from real flight time. It was just projections. There's only 1 flight it ever did and 1 video of that flight. all the other videos are military funding pitch videos with fake prototypes, not the real thing really flying. The only time it flew it was instantly apparent that it was shit and the military nixed funding and mothballed it. Mostly because it couldn't even be used in any windy condition since control was by leaning in it.
If you want hoverbike-like vehicles, check out the VTOL stuff like the sky car, sky jeep, airgeep, etc from the 1950s-60s. All relatively massive, all terrible, all past the "hoverbike" size, and all mothballed.
Piasecki VZ-8 Airgeep (best one)
Doak VZ-4
Chrysler VZ-6
Curtiss-Wright VZ-7 (quadcopter lol)
>>993073
.0008 and .024 is essentially nothing at all in terms of response time.
>>993119
>Collective pitch control could give a gas motor quick thrust control, and if you do a tandem like in op, that could also give you yaw control.
yea but using collective pitch propellers would add a LOT onto the price tag--go look up what they cost for small planes, compared to fixed-pitch...
>>993134
>.0008 and .024 is essentially nothing at all in terms of response time.
faster is better tho--especially considering that the gas engine can't speed up that much from 1 power stroke.
the electric motors will have a response time that is around 20 times better than gas engines could have.
>>993549
Response times that low a difference are completely meaningless. It is literally just stats to jerk over.
>>990004
>WHITE PEOPLE
