Is this considdered "Pushing the envelope"?

[flying dog]

I am not going to say anything.

 

Watch it and you decide:

 

http://hackaday.com/2016/04/28/colin-furze-flies-the-dangerous-skies/

 

I say 100 points for effort.

 

 

[Deskpilot]

Thought you weren't going to say anything ;-) Brilliant, mad cap attempt.

 

 

[facthunter]

There is no way that design will be stable or controllable. It's effective in getting viewers. Nev

 

 

[flying dog]

So did you wait until the end and watch some of his other clips?

 

some make that look TAME!

 

 

[facthunter]

It's not what he did. It's the design . Yes I went to the end.. I'm not particularly interested in bravery for no point. Back in aviation there have been many designs that shouldn't have got past the concept stage. It's still happening where one builds for style rather than controllability and efficiency. Nev

 

 

[M61A1]

I think the bravest part was wearing a tie...

 

 

[Geoff_H]

I think that it is more a ground effect machine. besides increased thrust in ground effect it will balance the craft by giving more thrust to a side that should dip down. Notice that one engine is upside down, maybe for gyroscope and air flow torque effect equalisation. What happens when an engine fails? mmmmm

 

 

[Oscar]

Does everything that a one-person hovercraft with a saddle would do, with way less safety. For my money, is as practical as a Unicycle drag-bike ( yes - they DO exist, even have competitions! http://jalopnik.com/355481/unicycle-drag-racing-for-the-win ) - and as a way of having drunken fun for cheap money at fairly low risk of much beyond sudden and hideous death, an admirable time-out from sanity.

 

Kudos to the guy for having a giant economy-size sense of the ridiculous.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

Awesome, just awesome.

 

Should be more of it but the mentality nowadays is to save everybody from themselves.

 

What happens when an engine fails? mmmmm

You go "oh shite" and you die, or least get pretty badly hurt, did you actually need that to be explained to you?

 

 

[robinsm]

I think this is great. Chancy, but all the best discoveries are like this. I would have a go in a flash...

 

 

[IBob]

It's certainly called pushing...something....uphill, by the looks of it?

 

 

[Kiwi303]

I thought the name seemed familiar... don't subscribe to his channel, but even a cave dweller like me has heard of Mr Crazy Jet Bastard.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

Ha, it was just on China National News!

 

 

 

[old man emu]

Notice that one engine is upside down, maybe for gyroscope and air flow torque effect equalisation. What happens when an enmgine fails? mmmm

This has been brought to our attention by the infamous FT

 

http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/homebuilt-hoverbike.148808/#post-557661

 

In describing the design, Furze says that the rear engine had to be inverted so that the props were counter-rotating to balance torque effects.

 

There is no way that design will be stable or controllable. It's effective in getting viewers. Nev

Considering that the design brief was to "produce a flying machine" I think that it is a satisfactory proof of concept result.

 

You really must watch the four videos in the link above to understand what has been done.

 

OME

 

 

[Camel]

I watch a lot of his videos and am proud of him, an achiever and a doer ! Good stuff !

 

 

[IBob]

It's not what he did. It's the design . Yes I went to the end.. I'm not particularly interested in bravery for no point. Back in aviation there have been many designs that shouldn't have got past the concept stage. It's still happening where one builds for style rather than controllability and efficiency. Nev

Agreed. And since anyone with a reasonable grasp of physics and engineering could predict how this would behave, why would you bother building it?

 

 

[pylon500]

Ha, it was just on China National News!

Does that mean we will see them in stores by Christmas?

 

 

[M61A1]

Does that mean we will see them in stores by Christmas?

Hope so......I look forward to the spate of Current Affairs stories with concerned journalists asking "are we doing enough?"

 

 

[M61A1]

Agreed. And since anyone with a reasonable grasp of physics and engineering could predict how this would behave, why would you bother building it?

If the Wright brothers thought that way. Where would we be?

 

 

[facthunter]

The Wright design was based on much previous sound research by many other people which was acknowledged. It was a logical development embodying sound established principles plus one major improvement, Wing warping giving direct control in the roll axis. Also a suitable power unit (just). To compare this with the Wright's Flyer does no justice to the wrights at all. I would have thought a flying machine would have to fly and be controllable to qualify. This thing isn't even controllable or safe in ground effect. We have come a long way in the last 100+ years . Getting off the ground in any way possible is hardly where we are at. He's free to do what he wishes, but don't compare it with the significant events in aviation development .Nev

 

 

[IBob]

If the Wright brothers thought that way. Where would we be?

Believe me, this guy is a very long way behind the Wright brothers. They were using their heads to build and learn on what was understood at the time.

 

I have no problem with entertainment, or anyone building something because they feel like it. Sure, good on 'em. But I can't see any point in pretending this is any sort of useful contribution beyond that, that's all.

 

Now I'm waiting for someone to mention Edison, again...who showed that the lightbulb (which he didn't invent) could be improved...using the empirical method (try everything until you accidentally discover what works). It's one way to proceed, but horribly inefficient, and probably almost totally ineffective now most of the easier stuff has been done.

 

Meanwhile, Tesla, who worked for him was actually using his head...and developed the working theory behind the AC motor and all the mains power reticulation in the world today.

 

 

[old man emu]

Prototypes often crash. That's an accepted part of the development sequence. Anyone heard of gyroscopes, or even more crudely, pendulum masses?

 

OME

 

 

[M61A1]

Believe me, this guy is a very long way behind the Wright brothers. They were using their heads to build and learn on what was understood at the time.I have no problem with entertainment, or anyone building something because they feel like it. Sure, good on 'em. But I can't see any point in pretending this is any sort of useful contribution beyond that, that's all.

 

Now I'm waiting for someone to mention Edison, again...who showed that the lightbulb (which he didn't invent) could be improved...using the empirical method (try everything until you accidentally discover what works). It's one way to proceed, but horribly inefficient, and probably almost totally ineffective now most of the easier stuff has been done.

 

Meanwhile, Tesla, who worked for him was actually using his head...and developed the working theory behind the AC motor and all the mains power reticulation in the world today.

And they still had a lot of naysayers, lots of unconstructive criticism, and many that thought even if it did work it was useless.

 

 

[IBob]

And they still had a lot of naysayers, lots of unconstructive criticism, and many that thought even if it did work it was useless.

Did they?

Perhaps you might expect that, but if you read about the Wright brothers, what they actually got was stranger still: nothing much of anything. The local newspaper couldn't be bothered to send a reporter out, and the men of science said it couldn't be so, or someone important would have told them!

 

Sort of the opposite of what we have now, come to think of it...

 

 

[Yenn]

From what I have read the Wright brothers were not looking for publicity, they were working away at improving their methods of control, quite happily away from publicity.