If hoverbikes are bullshit then why is the U.S military funding it?
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2015/06/23/us-army-eyes-star-wars-style-hoverbikes-for-tactical-reconnaissance.html
http://www.hover-bike.com/MA/news/
>"U.K.-based Malloy Aeronautics, an aeronautical engineering firm, to announce that the two companies have teamed up on the development of Hoverbike technology for the U.S. Department of Defense"
>"Malloy are working on the Hoverbike as part of an ongoing research and development contract with the U.S. Army Research Laboratory. The Hoverbike is being developed to operate as a new class of Tactical Reconnaissance Vehicle (TRV)"
/sci/ BTFO
If you are obssessed with hoverbikes so much, why don't you make one? Shit just make one in simulation if you're fucking poor. If boeing can design an entire airplane in simulation, you should be able to make a hover bike in sim too.
Now go pirate /x/plane. Stop white-knighting for hoverbikes, we're just going to troll you
Because the DoD funds damn near any engineering project so long as someone on the route to funding has a passing interest/belief the thing will work or if the project involves enough Congressional districts and very little to do with how realistic the project is.
>>8045315
The US military can fund whatever they want with a budget that big
>>8045315
>citing Faux News
>citing any mainstream media outlet
>not being part of the 94% that doesn't trust these fucks
Because imagine how much easier it would be to spread freedom to all those middle eastern countries if we didn't have to drive through all that sand?
>>8045330
This, they cuck burgerland taxpayers for novelties and oil
theyre not bullshit. they are inefficient and unreliable compared to other lightweight ground vehicles
>>8045323
I am, that's how I got dragged into this argument in the first place
>Some guy makes thread asking if hoverbike is real
>I reply saying yes because I'm already working on similar systems
>1000 replies of lol you're wasting your time
>Now troll /sci/ with daily hoverbike news
>>8045329
>>8045330
If it was as useless as /sci/ claimed it was they wouldn't fund it. Despite your simplistic view of your government fucking you over they don't actually throw money on a fire for fun, there had to have been some belief that it will work in order for it have gotten funding. If I approach them with plans for a pyramid power death ray they are not going to fund that.
>>8045315
Expensive fun art project that could be easily shot down.
Is this some gay shit with impellers or actual Endor speeder bike shit? If the latter, take my tax money senpai
>>8045397
Are they really inefficient? it depends on how much you need to lift, helicopters are sometimes overkill. Think about it. If you're a single person and need a flying machine that can hover your current only choice is a helicopter. Now a helicopter is actually overkill for one person because you are lifting a 80 kg human plus a 100 kg piston engine plus another 300 kg frame. That's 480 kg. If you choose a hoverbike youc an fly and hover in the exact same way yet you are now only lifting a 80 kg human plus a 40 kg engine plus a 100 kg frame which is 220 kg. That is less than half the weight. Now propellers follow a power law this means the full sized helicopter needed 2^(3/2) times more power or nearly 3x the power to fly the same guy.
/sci/ BTFO
>>8045417
Why do people hate reaction propulsion? It got us to the Moon you know.
Now that I've been vindicated by the US DoD, rather than admit that I had a point that there is a niche for the hoverbike alongside the traditional helicopter /sci/ just goes silent abandoning the thread. I guess that's 4chan for you, make oversimplified ad-hominem and strawman laden arguments then if that fails either spam memes or hide the thread like a coward.
>>8045467
But whatever I'm happy, I proved my point. Goodbye and if you ever see a hoverbike shop on your street it might be owned by me.
>>8045401
>there had to have been some belief
Can you not read? I said that someone in the funding chain had to at least like the idea; that has little bearing on how realistic it is. There is relatively little preventing a dumbass from ending up in that seat so long as they haven't fucked up too much early in their career.
>>8045473
>Enough people in the US military funding department of maybe a couple thousand employees liked the idea for it to attain funding
>Yet somehow according to /sci/ no-one in the rest of the entire human population of 7 billion will like the idea enough to buy it
You guys don't understand the word niche. People make a living selling dragon dildos FFS
>>8045493
I did not say anything of the sort. I am sure that if you could build one that worked efficiently enough, was simple enough to operate safely and regulate, you could find a market and not get in shit heaps of trouble. The problem is that doesn't look terribly likely. How much funding has been showered on jet packs for, what, 60 years?
>>8045473
I don't understand why you just won't admit the words "I personally don't think it's a good idea but there may be a market for it" It's not hard. I have given so many examples as to why efficiency isn't a big deal, even one example where the hoverbike ends up being more efficient than a helicopter. I already told /sci/ that while RC petrol engines have excellent efficency due to the Otto Cycle scaling down well, RC turbines have piss poor efficiency due to the Brayton cycle not scaling down well. DESPITE ALL OF THIS RC turbines are still popular within the community because they have better power to weight ratio and they look cool. Hoverbikes have better power to weight ratio and they look cool therefore why you think there is no market for it I just don't understand.
>>8045499
Jet packs have finally made it, there is one coming to market now, the JB-9 that has 10 minutes of flight time. With jetpacks they flopped for 60 years because the technology didn't exist. Now turbines have improved to the point where you don't need to use a peroxide rocket for 30 seconds of flight anymore. likewise with hoverbikes two-stroke engines have improved to the point where it's feasible.
>>8045499
But most importantly, if you can and are willing to take the risk you shouldn't be laughed at for simply trying.
>>8045425
The hoverbike won't be flying outside of ground effect
>>8045315
Military funding doesn't mean something isn't bullshit. The army use to have a psychic research program.
>>8045513
You got maths to back up that claim? Funny I seem to remember even a battery powered hoverboard making it out of ground effect 2 years ago.
>>8045518
They're waiting for their avionics to be approved by the FAA
>>8045531
C'mon that's a strawman from the 50's. Give me one example of post cold-war military research that was tinfoil.
>>8045508
They exist, but they're still expensive toys with no practical use.
>>8045543
>Give me one example of post cold-war military research that was tinfoil.
The Cold War did not end sufficiently long ago for such research to have been declassified and there would be reason to keep it that way since that shit would be embarrassing. That is not to say that there is not tin-foil tier DoD projects afoot, such as the interest in Shawyer's bullshit in the early 2000's from multiple defense contractors.
>>8045762
>"Military works on tinfoil shit"
>"But I can't say because it's classified"
>"Just believe me!"
And FYI the memedrive isn't completely tinfoil because it is giving positive results. Even if it turns out to be errors there's nothing kooky about investigating until this is known for sure
Anyway who cares what you think I've just finished up some calculations and everything is looking good. Road to riches.
