Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science Technology

Human Powered Paper Airplane 97

Posted by timothy from the bad-place-for-a-charleyhorse dept.
gilgsn writes: "The Raven is a honeycomb paper, foam and graphite-fibre tape, human powered airplane designed to beat the current record held by MIT's Daedalus . The plane is also powered by a 16MHz Motorola 68332. The technical specifications of the onboard computer are pretty interesting. Unfortunately, as reported on Ananova, the Raven recently crashed a mere 100 feet after taking off, causing some damage to its fragile structure. Maybe they could upgrade to a Pentium and convinced Lance Armstrong to give it a try..."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Human Powered Paper Airplane More

Human Powered Paper Airplane

Comments Filter:

  • "Human Powered Paper Airplane" == stupid title (Score:3, Insightful)

    by J.D. Hogg ( 545364 ) on Monday December 31, 2001 @09:24PM (#2769413) Homepage
    Err... when I folded that A4 sheet and threw it in the amphitheater at University, it sure seemed like a human powered paper airplane to me.

    So, maybe the article is about a full-size airplane made of paper that is powered by a human being who also happens to be onboard ?

  • A 16 MHz Proc? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by cscx ( 541332 )
    The last thing you want is an application to slow down when you're up in the air.... Maybe they should switch to Embedded Linux!
  • Pentiums consume ~50watts or more in most situations. A human can only output just about that much, consistently over an extended time. The rider would spend all their energy simply keeping the Pentium running...
    • The rider would spend all their energy simply keeping the Pentium running...
      Hey, corporate IT departments have been using that operational model for a decade without difficulty.

    • Re:Pentium? Then you'd need a horse... (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      A human could produce that much, and probably much more; if and only if they (most anyways) weren't fat sacks of lard. Maybe a CS person couldnt. Average Joe shure could. Whilst cycling, an average person could train to produce 300 watts over an hour easily. If you have some dedication, and are fit otherwise, you could probably do 500-700 watts. I don't know alot about Lance Armstrong, but I bet he (and no doubt many ohter cyclists) could do that 500-700 watts for a very (relatively, anyway) long time.

      Don't get me wrong, I understand that it is best to keep the power requirement of the electronics down to minimal, for many reasons. Maybe they could have used a transmeta or something, but who cares. If a 16Mhz dragon ball was all they needed, then that's what they should use. Hell, I'd let them use my Handspring Visor if it made the job any easier (it can run for a freakin long time on a single charge) --though I suspect that it is well in their budget, given all the composite work.
      • Speaking as a CS person and a bike racer: your estimates are pretty good but a bit optimistic. I actually have a bike computer that measures power output [power-tap.com], so my numbers are pretty good. I can produce 300W for an hour during the racing season, and I'm pretty average... but I wouldn't say it was easy (I did over 5000 training miles this year). Lance can keep up about 450W for an hour (which I can keep up for about one minute), and he's about the limit. To do 700W would require something other than blood to be pumping in your arteries.

        • Well, considering 746W is about 1.0HP I don't fscking blame him for not being able to produce that for an hour (of course he probably can process 40lbs. of food an hour either... :)

  • Perhaps these people can succeed where Da Vinci failed. The amount of human power necessary to drive a plane is insanely great. See his journals for sketchings of his ideas... they are actually remarkably similar to this... only now, we're "cheating" by using a microchip and high-tech fibers. I'll believe it when I see it in this Raven.

  • irony (Score:1)

    by Jnxer ( 546970 )
    hmmm, a 16 year project, and the most viable one in a test, only to be wreched within moments of takeoff.

    "I feel great that it flew"
    I would be pissed!

  • Pentium? Are you nuts? (Score:3, Funny)

    by x136 ( 513282 ) on Monday December 31, 2001 @09:35PM (#2769441) Homepage
    Maybe they could upgrade to a Pentium

    Uh, hello? This plane is made out of paper! Paper is flammable!

    To recap: Paper Airplane + Pentium = Flaming Paper Airplane.

    Given two equally equipped airplanes, it's kinda common sense that the one that isn't on fire will fly longer and farther. :)
    • Uh, hello? This plane is made out of paper! Paper is flammable!

      Good thing the submittee didn't suggest an AMD...

      You ever see Tom's Hardware's .AVI of Pentiums vs. AMD's?
    • Given two equally equipped airplanes, it's kinda common sense that the one that isn't on fire will fly longer and farther.

      On the other hand, filling the sky with thousands of flaming paper airplanes would be an excellent way to scare the crap out of your enemies.

    • Given two equally equipped airplanes, it's kinda common sense that the one that isn't on fire will fly longer and farther.

      In the case of jet-powered or rocket-powered airplanes (think Nebelwurfer) it's the one not on fire which falls out of the sky.

      Elastic bands are the only safe way. (-:

  • No need to upgrade (Score:5, Informative)

    by Space Cow ( 93479 ) on Monday December 31, 2001 @09:42PM (#2769454)
    As one of the control engineers who worked on this project, I can tell you there is no need to upgrade to a Pentium. The customized Tattletale system we were using had more than enough power.

    The problems that I saw with this project had less to do with the control system and more to do with the airframe. The airframe was damaged a number of times and was extremely fragile. Damage probably occured during every flight test.

    For those who are interested, I worked with the RAVEN team 2 years ago. I was resposible for getting an ultrasonic altitude sensor (primary) and a barometric altitude sensor (backup) to co-operate. The idea was that if the ultrasonic device failed the barometric would take over. The reason the barometric device wasn't the primary sensor was because of drift due to weather changes. Accuracy was important because the pilot was not a pilot, but rather an engine. The control system was in charge of maintaining altitude and heading.

    • The reason the barometric device wasn't the primary sensor was because of drift due to weather changes.

      Hey! Speaking of this, something I've always wondered...

      I used to have a really cool Casio watch that had a built-in pressure sensor that told altitude and water-depth. One thing that I never understood was how you can tell altitude from a barometer. Wouldn't the weather changing make it completely inaccurate? I would imagine that air pressure changes fairly dramatically depending on the weather. How can it ever be remotely accurate? Or are weather-related pressure changes actually pretty minor as a percentage of average air pressure?

      • One thing that I never understood was how you can tell altitude from a barometer. Wouldn't the weather changing make it completely inaccurate? I would imagine that air pressure changes fairly dramatically depending on the weather. How can it ever be remotely accurate? Or are weather-related pressure changes actually pretty minor as a percentage of average air pressure?

        A quick google search turns up a little information that answers your questions. Changes in weather do cause large fluctuations in what a barometric altimeter reads (>100 feet). Pilots relying on barometric altimeters must regularly recalibrate against readings on the ground.

      • I also have a watch that does this. The answer is yes the fluctuations are large. That is why it is necessary to calibrate the watch at a known altitude before every significant use.
      • This true story involves a question on a physics exam at the University of Copenhagen:

        "Describe how to determine the height of a skyscraper with a barometer."

        One student replied:

        "You tie a long piece of string to the neck of the barometer, then lower the barometer from the roof of the skyscraper to the ground. The length of the string plus the length of the barometer will equal the height of the building."

        This highly original answer so incensed the examiner that the student was failed immediately.

        He appealed on the grounds that his answer was indisputably correct, and the university appointed an independent arbiter to decide the case. The arbiter judged that the answer was indeed correct, but it did not display any noticeable knowledge of physics.

        To resolve the problem it was decided to call the student in and allow him six minutes in which to provide a verbal answer which showed at least a minimal familiarity with the basic principles of physics.

        For five minutes the student sat in silence, forehead creased in thought.

        The arbiter reminded him that time was running out, to which the student replied that he had several extremely relevant answers, but couldn't make up his mind which one to use.

        On being advised to hurry up, the student replied as follows:

        "First, you could take the barometer up to the roof of the skyscraper, drop it over the edge, and measure the time it takes to reach the ground. The height of the building can then be worked out from the formula: H = 0.5g x t squared. But bad luck for the barometer."

        "Or if the sun is shining you could measure the height of the barometer, then set it on end and measure the length of its shadow. Then you measure the length of the skyscraper's shadow, and thereafter it is simple matter of proportional arithmetic to work out the height of the skyscraper."

        "But if you wanted to be highly scientific about it, you could tie a short piece of string to the barometer and swing it like a pendulum, first at ground level and then on the roof of the skyscraper. The height is worked out by the difference in the gravitational restoring force: T = 2 pi sq root (l/g)."

        "Or if the skyscraper has an outside emergency staircase, it would be easier to walk up it and mark off the height of the skyscraper in barometer lengths, then add them up."

        "If you merely wanted to be boring and orthodox about it, of course, you could use the barometer to measure the air pressure on the roof of the skyscraper and on the ground, and convert the difference in millibars into feet to give the height of the building."

        "But since we are constantly being exhorted to exercise independence of mind and apply scientific methods, undoubtedly the best way would be to knock on the janitor's door and say to him, 'If you'd like a nice new barometer, I'll give you this one if you'll tell me the height of this skyscraper.'"

  • Project shutting down? (Score:5, Informative)

    by uchian ( 454825 ) on Monday December 31, 2001 @09:45PM (#2769459) Homepage
    It seems relevant that this [ravenproject.org] link should be noted. Seems like the project's run out of funding?

  • uhh (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Maybe they could upgrade to a Pentium and convinced Lance Armstrong to give it a try...


    People in paper planes shouldn't start fires

    (pentium=overheat=fire harde-har-har)

  • Hey, this is local! (Score:5, Informative)

    by Raetsel ( 34442 ) on Monday December 31, 2001 @09:56PM (#2769483)

    Paine Field is about 3 miles away from my house, if that. It's right across the 'street' from the Boeing 747/767 assembly plant -- you know, the "world's largest building"? (Largest, I suppose, in that it covers more land than any other building -- it's not particularly tall.)

    I saw a news bit recently (last night?) about the crash... looked like one of those 'impending doom' situations, where you know things are going badly, and there's nothing you can do to stop it. Unwieldy looking landing gear, but necessary for the size of the prop the fellow is turning. I'm amazed there was as little damage -- it looked worse.

    Here are some links from local news:

    Doesn't look like the pilot has much for visibility. It's one of the most recumbant positions I've seen for human-powered flight. When they were pulling him out, it looked like he's almost strapped to the underside of the spar!

    Incidentally, the Boeing hangar (the 747 assembly building) is where some of the human-powered helicopter (!!!) tests have been conducted. It's the only indoor place large enough, and the tests have to be indoors because they need absolutely calm air.

    • "Doesn't look like the pilot has much for visibility. It's one of the most recumbant positions I've seen for human-powered flight. When they were pulling him out, it looked like he's almost strapped to the underside of the spar!"

      The pilot doesn't need much visibility because he is just pedalling for all he is worth. The "engine" is an endurance cyclist and the "pilot" most of the time is the control system.

      • Pilot vs. Engine (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Raetsel ( 34442 ) on Monday December 31, 2001 @10:50PM (#2769569)

        Paul MacCready had the Gossamer Condor and then the Gossamer Albatross -- two famous aircraft, to be sure.

        A group at MIT built the Light Eagle and Daedalus.

        In both cases, the pilot was in as complete control of the craft as I can imagine; providing both power and control input. Daedalus had a... problem... I believe it was a gust of wind that put it in the surf off Santorini beach. Perhaps, if the pilot had not been so exhausted from being the engine as well, that might not have happened. Good argument for flight controls that don't get tired.

        Then there are people like me (an occasional sailplane pilot, more seldom than I'd like), who would rather not have something else be in control of a craft that is so vulnerable to the whims of the wind.

        You mentioned the pilot "most of the time" is the electronics. How much control does the human engine actually have? (Just curious...) Granted, it'd be rather nice to have the 'highway in the sky' that NASA and Paul Moller keep crowing about...

        It's rather ironic, actually, that this testing is happening on Boeing's home turf. The attitudes of Boeing vs. Airbus with regard to computer control used to be 180 apart: Boeing's computer systems would default to what the human pilot believed was necessary, while Airbus had a system that limited what the pilot was able to do. In effect, Airbus' computer design had final authority. I believe this changed after the A3xx airshow crash (when the pilot tried to apply power and ended up in the trees anyway), but I haven't heard anything about this for several years.

        I hope more enlightened attitudes have prevailed.

        • The pilot punches in a heading and an altitude and then just pedals like crazy. The control system does everything within its power to maintain the correct heading and altitude. The actual flight would have been at about 50' the whole way.

          We did build some simple controls for the pilot to use if necessary. Just punch left or right on the keypad and the plane would begin a fixed rate turn in the appropriate direction (as opposed to tracking a heading).

  • What's needed (Score:5, Funny)

    by DeadBugs ( 546475 ) on Monday December 31, 2001 @10:23PM (#2769529) Homepage
    I found in my aerospace testing that adding a paper clip to the front of the airframe adds a great deal of stability.

  • website (Score:1, Flamebait)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I hope they are better at designing the plane than they are at designing the website [ravenproject.org]...what a piece of shit.

    All I wanted was to see a picture (or two), of the complete airplane ...not too much to ask for in a website, right? Wrong.

    The 'tour' is a tour of nothing. The 'photobase' has no index whatsoever (I'm supposed to read the designers mind to come up with a 'search' word?), and the actual photos, (when you finally find them) are thumbnails. When you click on the thumbnail for a larger image, you are instead taken back to the original photobase search page.
    I'll reiterate, what a load of shit.

    I guess they shot their intellectual 'wad' designing the logo.

  • Paper airplanes -- new tools of terror? (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    In related news, FBI agents have arrested several muslims in various areas of the U.S. for conspiring to crash paper airplanes into strategic targets in the U.S. and abroad.
  • then some wax, but just don't fly to close to the sun....

    Seriously, Paper? seems a little over the top. You're totally screwed if it gets wet, your insurance will be outragous, and there's alway the wife or girlfriend might clean out the hanger and through away all of that "old cardboard" setting around. And lets not forget, that turbulence that springs up at the worst possible moment..
    • Uh, I haven't seen any reports on Raven construction in quite a few years, but generally when they talk 'paper honeycomb'they mean Nomex.
      Nomex is a (IIRC) Meta-Aramid fibre, same family as kevlar. Nomex is used for fireproof articles (coveralls, like racing drivers use, etc.), and also made into a honeycomb. Believe me - if you've had to _work_ with Nomex honeycomb, you'll understand it is _nothing_ like paper as we know it ;-)
  • Hey guys,


    I'm totally naive about human-powered airplanes, so flame me if necessary, but: has anyone tried to make human-powered aircraft that uses multiple "human engines"? i.e. would a "twin" with two people pedalling, or even a "slave galley" plane with 10 or 20 people pedalling have more or less trouble staying aloft?


    Or, to put it another way, are there any economies of scale to be exploited by adding people to the engine?

    • 2 words: Siamese Twins.
    • has anyone tried to make human-powered aircraft that uses multiple "human engines"?

      No. Here is the problem: the airplane needs to hold itself together, hold itself in the sky, and hold its pilot in the sky. Two pilots mean more weight must be held in the sky. That means the plane must be stronger, which means it must be heavier. And, check out the wing span of the Raven: 115 feet wide! Add another pilot and you need more lift, i.e. even bigger wings! Finally, there are drive train issues: transferring power from both pilots into the propeller means more mechanical gears and stuff, which is bad; you want that stuff simple, and thus light.

      On a bicycle, you do get economies of scale when you add extra people. The main thing that slows a bicycle down is air resistance, and two people on one bicycle are aerodynamically very efficient. Also, a quality two-person bike weighs a little less than two quality one-person bikes, which is another economy of scale.

      steveha
      • Actually the answer is yes -- there was at least one plane with two pilots. I did design and construction work on it during the mid-late 70s. The fundamental design was done my my uncle Nick Goodhart. There are no detailed descriptions online (that I can find), but one of the pilots mentions it on his interests page [simongrant.org].

        The general shape was a 40 meter (yard) wing with the two pilots seperated by 20 meters. Steering was performed by varying the power output of the two pilots. This was controlled by bullhorn in the chase car. The pilots had a single control -- an elevator on their individual tails. This allowed them to control the twist on the wing section between them, thus varying the lift and hence should allow them to bank.

        The craft -- called 'newbury manflier' was built at Greenham Common in the UK on the US Air force base there. They had huge empty hangers and a huge runway that was hardly used. Unfortunately we got thrown out when Cruise missiles were stationed there.

        The craft flew a few times, but never very far. The goal was to win the original Kremer prize (the 1 mile figure of eight course) that Macready won with Gossamer Condor.

        The problems with the craft were the general fragility of the airframe which meant that crashes caused significant amounts of damage, which took a long time to repair -- partially due to the nature of volunteer labour.

        The manflier is now in the Science Museum (it might be in London, but is probably at their offsite storage facility).

    • More importantly, has anyone considered a revised "slave galley" design for a plane that is powered by chickens rather than humans? If I were in possession of such a design, where might I be able to test it without violating any animal cruelty laws?
  • Maybe they could upgrade to a Pentium and convinced Lance Armstrong to give it a try...

    I know this is a joke, but just for your information, their pilot Mike Eddy [meinnovations.com] is an excellent choice. He is shorter than average, and built of muscle, and a world-class cyclist. I don't think Lance Armstrong is shorter than average, so I don't think he would work as well as Mike Eddy!

    steveha
  • ...next time anyone tells a "joke" as bad as the "upgrade to a pentium and convince lance armstrong to try it" joke, can we take them 'round back and shoot them?

  • Raven news (Score:3, Informative)

    by macpeep ( 36699 ) on Tuesday January 01, 2002 @06:54AM (#2770044)
    After surfing the site a little more, I ran across this news item, which was the most recent one on the site and seems to me to be of some significance to this story:

    Wednesday, December 12, 2001
    RAVEN Project closing - Paul
    Raven team members,

    It is with great regret that I must announce that the RAVEN Project is
    shutting down. The numbers have caught up to the project. There just
    aren't anymore resources available to for us to continue. At the end of the
    year our lease expires and there is just enough money to cover that debt.
    My financial position does not allow me the option of continuing any
    further.
  • This is getting ridiculous. It's bad enough saying a server is "powered by Apache", or "powered by Linux." Now we have a paper airplane "powered by a cpu".

    Goodness gracious, is everyone afraid to say "controlled by"?
  • Upgrade to a pentium? Please. I don't care what the clock speeds are, it could be a million to one in favor of Pentium, going from a Motorola chip to a Pentium is no upgrade.
  • Shouldn't 'human powered' mean the guy pedaling has to do the calculations by hand too?

Slashdot Top Deals

"Marriage is low down, but you spend the rest of your life paying for it." -- Baskins

Close