Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science Technology

Personal Helicopter Available For $30,000 88

Posted by timothy from the thwop-thwop-thwop dept.
gsfprez writes "The question was recently asked on /., "will personal flight ever be viable?". The answer is "if you have $30,000 today, yes". They are looking to work with Americans who will be willing to help them with testing a few final steps of their GEN H-4 Personal Helicopter, such as ballistic parachutes. $30,000 to beta test a helicopter I can park in the garage? Honey, pass me 5 credit cards!"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Personal Helicopter Available For $30,000 More

Personal Helicopter Available For $30,000

Comments Filter:

  • 5 cards? (Score:3, Funny)

    by tenman ( 247215 ) <(moc.iausten) (ta) (gro.todhsals)> on Thursday November 21, 2002 @01:20PM (#4724512) Journal
    Credit cards with limits as high as 6 grand? wow, that kinda makes my $200 limit seem less important... :(
    • Just wait until you want to buy a house...

      Once you've been paying on your house, they keep upping your limit (mine is at 20,000 and there is no reason for anyone to need that much on a CC)
      • I don't have a house. Alaska was happy enough to give me a card with limit of $10K.

        Why would one need that much? Well, I have $600 in credit card bills per month (and put the car insurance on it as wel). And then a plane ticket can cost around $1200 for an over-seas trip. That leaves little room if the limit was around $2000 which was some of my earlier cards.

        Did I mention that Alaska gives me miles for my spending and that I have enough for a round trip to Europe after only a year and a half? :) And two first class upgrades.
        • Alaska was happy enough to give me a card with limit of $10K.....Did I mention that Alaska gives me miles for my spending

          I take it you are referring to the Alaska Airlines frequent flier credit card. It isn't issued by the airline, its' issued by a bank - Bank of America [bankofamerica.com] to be specific.

          • I take it you are referring to the Alaska Airlines frequent flier credit card. It isn't issued by the airline, its' issued by a bank - Bank of America to be specific.

            Yes, I should have been more specific on that it is issued by B of A. However, I was able to get it through Alaska Airlines with no problem. Previous attempts at obtaining a credit card directly from B of A were rejected until using a secure line of credit (meaning they held on to $2k of my money for a $2k credit line).

            To be fair that B of A sucks on both sides (I moved states and all of a sudden, they want fees or massive minimum deposits on my accounts... ridiculous), Alaska Airlines' version of B of A credit card rejected my SO because he's not a US citizen.
        • Yes, rewards are about the only good reason to put money on a credit card, and then only if you pay it off every month. Even one month's interest on your balance typically erases the value of any cash-back or rewards.

          I alternate spending between a Marriott Rewards card which gives points towards hotel stays (or they can be exchanged for airline miles, car rentals, etc) and my new Upromise card which returns 1% of spending into my daughter's college fund (we've probably got half of her first semester paid for, and she's not a year old yet).

          Wow, this is offtopic, isn't it? Well, I'll veer almost back by saying I think I'd need to max out 4 of my cards to cover a $30,000 copter.
    • My freshman year of college (7 years ago) I was selling computers to small companies. I'd buy them on my credit card and pay it all off at the end of the month when I got paid from the company I was selling to. I did ~ $150,000 in business that year, and by the end of the year my credit card limit was over $65k!

      Long story short: Buy lots of stuff on your credit card, and pay it off in full every month and you can have an astronomical limit within a year.
  • that 30k is less expensive than that's really not that bad, and I am sure that people will be going crazy to take advantage of it...

    (although...I can't IMAGINE if you had to insure one of those things...ouch...)

  • ObHelicopterJoke (Score:5, Funny)

    by Violet Null ( 452694 ) on Thursday November 21, 2002 @01:21PM (#4724519)
    They want people...to test parachutes...in a helicopter.

    Let me think about that one.
    • They're not what you think, or what I thought. It is a forcefully (ballistic) deployed parachute attached to the helicopter. See here [byu.edu] in relation to the GEN H-4.
    • actually there is a helicopter you can eject from.

      it is the russian ka-50 black shark, in the west better known as hokum or werewolf for those commanche players. after the ejection lever has been pulled, the rotor blades are blown up.

      the helicopter uses the same world best ejection seat as mig-29 which can rescue the pilot even from the ground.

  • talk about uptime! (Score:5, Funny)

    by fiftyLou ( 472705 ) on Thursday November 21, 2002 @01:21PM (#4724522)

    From the faq:
    Q : Does it fly?
    A : Yes, This particular prototype has been flown continuously since 1999.

    I pity the poor SOB who's been stuck flying that thing for 3 "continuous" years.

  • $30,000 seems a little bit extreme for something that is composed of a harness, a few aluminum poles, and a motor with 2 rotors... even to rebate the R&D costs. With such a hefty price, this product will (it kills me) fly.

    • Looking at their site, it seems that while the frame and rotors are pretty simplistic, there's a lot of novel and expensive design/engineering work in the enginer/transmission part that's in that little backpack on the back of the thing. They have a cutaway view of the transmission with a breif description. Once the R&D costs are gone and they begin mass manufacturing I bet they could get the price down to $10k or so.

    • Re:$30,000 a little bit extreme? (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Naw,

      It's $5000 for the machine, $25000 for the manufacturer's liability insurance.

      -RAT
    • Remember, it's manufactured as a aircraft, so it has much more in the way of extreme precision parts. The power/autogyro assembly alone would be about $2000 and that's just a short rod with a locking bearing in it.
  • There counter says:

    Today 116 yesterday 013

    I cant wait to see that at the end of the day after the /. effect...
  • So the FAQ dated 03/00/2001 (???) says the thing is expected to be delivered by 2000 - I hope the web site writer is not associated with engineering.

    It's also not comforting that I am supposed to have a "zip-cord" just to get the info pack.
  • ...commit suicide for a heck of a lot less than $30k.

    Seriously, I haven't heard the best things about aviation products so far. A helicopter is a particularly finicky piece of engineering.

    Personally I'd like the propeller beanie Calvin always dreamed of.
    • cut-rate aviation products

      Since I'm successively posting anyway, an experienced helicopter pilot I used to work years ago with said that a typical helicopter might give you six seconds to react to a power failure -- and the (inexpensive) Robinson only two. Piston-driven helicopter generallys are more probe to engine failure -- an internal combustion engine has a heck of a lot of parts, and power loss though not a death sentence is highly undesirable. Many of the bigger helicopters you see actually have twin jet turbines. Yet even with a working engine, a failure in the mechanical system driving the rotors is lethal.

      Don't get me wrong, I think helicopters are way cool. But not foolproof.

      The other major problem with personal aviation transportation is that there are few fender-benders in the sky. Also, the weather can nail you; it's too easy to convince yourself that sure, I can stay under those clouds over those hills... I'm not even sure I'd feel safe on the ground with every Dick and Jane buzzing around.
      • First of all, this is much, much, mcuh simpler than a "normal" helicopter (a.k.a. one with a Main rotor and a tail rotor to counteract the torque of the main rotor.) This has two coaxial counter rotating rotors that driven by four engines. The standard directions controlled by the main rotor on a conventional helicopter (roll and pitch) are controlled by moving the whole upper head (the engines, transmission, and rotors), the altitude is controlled by changing the speed of the two rotors at the same time, and rotation is controlled by changing the speed of the rotors independtly (slowing one down and speeding one up). The four engines entail one of the safety devices, because the helicopter can fly with only 3 engines and can land with full control with only 2 engines. The ballistic (a.k.a. rocket powered) parachute mounted above the rotors gives this thing another safety device, because even if you lose all of your engines (the rotor) you can still deploy the parachute and save yourself and the helicopter.

        With regards to the price of this thing, I'd say it is very reasonable. Engines of that size and weight (magnesium crankcase and aluminum cylinders make for 10hp out of 7 lbs) are definately not cheap, especially considering they are custom, and the transmission is the heart of the machine, custom, light, and also quite pricy.
        • No, you're right, there are are fewer sources of exotic death than a regular helicopter. Most people will instead run them into trees, birds, power lines, the ground, or run out of gas -- the traditional methods of self-destruction. (I love the sober line in so many NTSB accident reports that "The accident occurred when the aircraft descended below the height of the terrain." Uh-huh, how much do we pay you guys? But they do very good work.)

          I'm a former flight instructor and used to emphasizing all the things that can go wrong. A professional party-pooper.

          With regards to price, I'd be more comfortable if it cost more. They must be taking a loss on the $30k, anticipating greater volume once they've seeded the market with these very visible self-advertising aircraft.
    • As a friend of mine once said "Helicopters don't fly. They beat themselves into submission." Since I heard that, I don't really want to ride in one.
    • I think this do-it-yourself helicopter "kit" will provide amazing new opportunities for natural selection.

      Can't follow instructions? Plummet, then, to your death!
  • for 30K. You have to put the forsaken thing together yourself, and obtain the nesscessary tools to do so, save the plug wrench for engines. You also need to buy a battery charger and a carriage. If anyone feels they can spend 30k to buy this thing, I'm sure those extra expenses aren't a big deal, but I personally wouldn't trust myself to fly around in something that had "some assembly required" stamped on the box, and I was the one who had to assemble it.
  • From the FAQ [engineeringsystem.co.jp]:

    Q : When can I purchase a GEN H-4?
    A : Good Question!
    Sales of PROTOTYPE models are expected to begin summer of 2000. When the GEN H-4 becomes available it will be clearly posted on this web site.

    Well, since news of the GEN H-4 becoming available is not clearly posted on the web site and it's a couple year later, this may not be worth passing the credit cards for after all.

  • Does it run Linux? (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    And can I have a Beowulf cluster of those?
  • Jet packs (as in a jet, in a pack; rather than a rocket, in a pack) are rather more impressive; but so far as I know that has never been achieved yet, but there's someone trying...

    Check it out Andreas Project [technologi...icklung.de].

    Now, that's a hobby!

    • They have been built, but they're incredibly impractical. I think something like 4 working jet packs have been built. There's a bit of cloak-and-dagger intrigue around those, too -- one was stolen, and one of the pilots was murdered over it. Look around on Google, I'm sure you can find a synopsis -- it's interesting stuff.

      Anyway, they measure their flight times in seconds and only a few people in the world can fly them.

      • I don't believe that to be correct. A jet can run for far long periods of time, as it doesn't carry an oxidiser with it.

        Most so-called jet-packs are actually rocket packs, and they have to carry extra oxidiser (or a monopropellent such as hydrogen peroxide) and this greatly limits their life.

        This means that the burn time is measured in tens of seconds.

        However, a jet uses the atmosphere for the oxidiser; and hence has a much longer life; if you bothered to check the link, he's designing for a 20 minute burn time.

  • Engrish (Score:2, Funny)

    by penguin_punk ( 66721 )
    I know I'm not a big fan of engrish, but this is just scary. Would you give these guys $30 000?:

    22-Mar-02
    Can you see someone controls GEN H-4??
    Of cource, it is a radio controlled model. As you know, we can't several tests of GEN H-4 by manned in Japan. Because of Japanese reguration isn't suitable to develop new airplane. Therefore we developed the radio controlled model. The porpose pf this model is not only tests but also an aerial film and such.

    "As you know, we can't several tests of GEN H-4 by manned in Japan." WHOAH!!!! Slow down there big boy.

  • Some choice quotes from the site (Score:3, Funny)

    by JUSTONEMORELATTE ( 584508 ) on Thursday November 21, 2002 @02:08PM (#4724960) Homepage
    (from the "Hot News" link on the left panel:)
    7th-13th Apr-02

    GEN H-4 flighted in Sun 'n Fun 2002 airshow at Lakeland, Florida.
    This pilot was Jon Plummer. His flight-tech is very nice and fantastic.

    His what is what?
    22-Mar-02

    Can you see someone controls GEN H-4??
    Of cource, it is a radio controlled model. As you know, we can't several tests of GEN H-4 by manned in Japan. Because of Japanese reguration isn't suitable to develop new airplane. Therefore we developed the radio controlled model. The porpose pf this model is not only tests but also an aerial film and such.
    I'm not trying to mock someone for communication skills in a second language. (My japanese is horrid, for example) but my earnest fear is that some critical safety information would be lost in the translation. ("Oh, so sorry. I meant to say DON'T press that button while in flight!")
    --
  • I do remember this one from 1999, and have been keeping a distant (envious) watch on the technology. Original website was at Engineering System Co [engineeringsystem.co.jp], a company that seems eternally poised to make the next big thing. A different spin on the helicopter specs can be seen at this wayback [archive.org] page from 2000... the four separate engines sound good.

    So now it's over two years late, costs just as much (only now we're in a recession), and I still want one! A landing pad would look great on our back lawn.

  • Range (Score:3, Funny)

    by Strange Ranger ( 454494 ) on Thursday November 21, 2002 @02:14PM (#4725020)
    Okay, so if you're quite a bit less fat than I am you can fly this thing at 55mph (top speed) for an hour. Let's be slightly conservative and call it a 25 mile range for a round trip for a skinny person. In rain or high winds forget it. So what are its practical uses?

    1. Getting to that remote fishing hole the lazy way.
    2. Getting home from the bar with no chance of being pulled over.
    3. Getting that aerial shot of your neighbor's wife sunbathing.
    4. ????
    5. Profit???


    Well maybe getting home from the bar + fun factor = worth it.

    • Re:Range (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      You forget 3a. Getting your head chopped off from a stray rotor blade.

      -Sean
    • Short of vacations, almost all of the driving I do is within 25 miles of where I live. (like my old job, any of my friends close enough to visit in person, about any store or restaurant I need). There's gas stations every couple of blocks, too, although I don't know how many of them have two-stroke oil available.

      --
      Benjamin Coates
    • hmm. I generally spend around 75 minutes driving to and from school. (total time, round trip) Figure you can save quite a bit of time by flying in a straight line and not having to stop at the lights, and it should be able to make the round trip.

      Of course, I suppose the school might object to my landing it on a roof...but hey, you know what parking in Denver is like ;-)

  • Possibly more viable personal flying options (Score:3, Informative)

    by netringer ( 319831 ) <maaddr-slashdot@@@yahoo...com> on Thursday November 21, 2002 @02:22PM (#4725088) Journal
    The SoloTrek will likely be available commercially at some point: http://www.solotrek.com/ [solotrek.com]

    The Moller Air Car is less likely: http://www.moller.com/skycar/ [moller.com]

  • Not for some geeks.... *sigh* (Score:3, Funny)

    by Sherloqq ( 577391 ) on Thursday November 21, 2002 @03:20PM (#4725640)
    From the FAQ:
    Q : How much weight can it carry?
    A : Currently with 40 horse power the max. pilot weight is about 190 lbs.
    Larger engines are in the works.

    "Honey, get off the treadmill, I have 50lbs to lose!"
    Oh, wait, been there, done that, got a (X-large) T-shirt...
    Aw, hell, I'll just wait for the bigger engine.

    Maybe I could use that GM 3.8L engine from the car... 200hp should do the trick.
    • Note the maximum 5 gallon fuel capacity, which severely limits its range, whether you're fat or not.

      Seems to me that the hour maximum flight time (even with a 190lb person) really limits its usefulness.

      Although I suppose it would be nice motivation to lose weight ...

      D
      • According to the specifications, the five gallon capacity is so that they can meet the United States Federal Aviation Regulations Part 103 definition for an ultra-light vehicle.

        I admit a bias as a fixed wing airplane pilot; the prospect of helicopter kits, especially ultralight helicopter kits, frightens me. Assuming these guys ever make it to market, I sure don't want to be the first on my block to buy one of these things.

  • Pictures (Score:3, Informative)

    by Midnight Thunder ( 17205 ) on Thursday November 21, 2002 @03:30PM (#4725727) Homepage Journal
    If you hop over to the Japanese section, you will see it feels much more up to date, and there is even a photo gallery [engineeringsystem.co.jp].

  • Frauds? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Hyped01 ( 541957 )
    Many people are pointing out links to possible technology like this, but honestly, I am very skeptical about them all.

    Pictures (and ads selling the units) like the personal 1 man helicopter are nothing new and can be found in the back of Popular Mechanics for DECADES - yet you see no one owning one.

    Moller SkyCar [moller.com] is a perfect example of something, that to me looks quite dubious... why? Let's see...

    • The main page shows the "Freedom Motor" which is a gearbox (ie: small motor transmission - you can find them on small AC power generators) with an automotive starter coupled to it via a flywheel... sorry, though they have lotsa torque, nothing near the power/HP that is needed to fly - much less drive at any decent speed - a car.
    • Going to the Freedom Motors [freedom-motors.com] site linked to the pic shows all sorts of "motors" - which look more like standard US car alternators or generators (arent they inversely named??). Now, while a generator may be able to be used as a motor, again, the unit would not have enough power to move a car much less fly it...
    • Installed engine power: 645 hp (Moller claim) - while their engine site shows 120hp max, a drawing of inconspicuous identity, with the images of alternators and starters being claimed as combustion motors
    • While Solotrek seems to have more believable claims - perhaps that is also what makes them so less believable... they're working with lots of government agencies on this project... neat! (Really??? or have those agencies just said "Well, if you get it to work, call us, we'll be interested then").
    • Fortunately, to make me a believer, they have a bunch of pictures of "tethered" (from above... ie: suspended on a "rope", superman style) flight. So.... wil it actually work on it's own one day, or does it come with the crane, and crane operator to hoist you into the air? And all for a whopping 19 seconds! Wow! I can make it all the way... across my yard... in that time! My travel problems are over!
    Weird, huh?

    Perhaps one day, someone will come up with something that works, or something that looks more realistic or believable. The Wright brothers actually built something and flew it... no tethers, no pictures of alternators and engine starters claimed to be combustion engines... make it, cut the ropes, fly it and then talk to us.

    - Rob

    The opinions expressed herein are entirely my own. Anyone who agrees with them may also suffer from the same mental problems I do... whatever they are. ;-)

    • If you would actually read the Moller and Freedom Motors web sites, you would see that it is not a gearbox, but a rotary engine. Learn to read.
      • Duh!! Better idea - learn to LOOK. AND to READ...

        I can do both. I can put a picture of a toaster online, and say it's a microwave, but that doesnt change anything. The picture is of a gearbox and a car starter. They can say anything they want in the caption... or perhaps the "motor" is missing such vital things as an intake and exhaust manifold. And perhaps the other "motors" (ie: alternators or generators) are brilliantly housed in an alternator casing, with what sure as heck looks like the same plug hookups still intact and no manifolds. Even rotary motors require a place for fuel to go in and waste to go out...

    • Moller has been hyping this thing for a long time now. I have a brochure for a Moller flying saucer like vehicle from 1974, powered by six Wankel engines. This thing has been at "real soon now" for 28 years.

      This thing should have flown long ago. Maybe with lousy fuel economy, range, and operating cost, but it should have flown. Lots of small thrust-type air vehicles were built in the 1950s and 1960s, and many ended up at the Hiller Aviation Museum in Redwood City, CA. [hiller.org] They have a Hiller Flying Platform, which flew quite successfully. They also have a Rotorcycle, which is a one-person portable helicopter from 1957.

      Ultralight helicopters [rotor.com] have been available for a few years now. Ones slightly heavier than the ultralight category are better machines, though.

  • And for a somewhat more professional kit heli (Score:3, Informative)

    by Jim McCoy ( 3961 ) on Thursday November 21, 2002 @04:11PM (#4726065) Homepage
    Check out Rotorway (http://www.rotorway.com/) which offers the Exec 162F as a kit helicopter. These things are supposedly a little bit more "twitchy" and not as forgiving as a bigger helicopter (less time to react and less angular momentum stored in the blades in the case of a power failure) but for $65k you get a well-tested and engineered system backed by a "real" company and not someone running an operation out of their garage. The system this article references seems to be the ultralight of the rotorcraft world and not the Cessna 162 or GlassAir...

  • Canadian Air Force (Score:3, Funny)

    by macdaddy357 ( 582412 ) <macdaddy357@hotmail.com> on Thursday November 21, 2002 @04:17PM (#4726153)
    Maybe the Canadian Air Force could replace their antiquated fleet of Sea Kings [netscape.com] with these choppers.

  • From the article (Score:3, Funny)

    by n-baxley ( 103975 ) <nate&baxleys,org> on Thursday November 21, 2002 @05:49PM (#4727056) Homepage Journal
    Q : How much weight can it carry?
    A : Currently with 40 horse power the max. pilot weight is about 190 lbs.

    Unfortunatly, a large portion of the /. audience won't be able to ride. Get it... large.

    Ha ha ha ha.
    *ducks and runs*
  • How about the AirScooter [airscooter.com]!

    Popsci did a bit on it here [popsci.com]
    You might save 5k too.
  • Yesterday: 013
    Today: 3104

    Oh yeah, and it's 6am on the East Coast of the US. (and I'm already at work... ugh..)

  • imagine (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ... hovering over a beowulf cluster in one of these!
  • This site even uses the stereotypical Japanese style of speaking english...

    "Because of Japanese reguration isn't suitable to develop new airplane."
  • I was pretty excited about this thing until I made it to this FAQ entry:

    Q : Can it auto-rotate? (descend safely in the case of engine failure)
    A : No.
    As cool as being able to fly around would be, I value my life. They say the provide a balistic parchute in case of engine failure. They don't seem to mention how you would survive going through the blades though. Do they detach, or do you just hope you're insanely lucky?
    • 1. you wouldn't separate from the craft -too dangerous.
      2. You would have to kill the motor and ...
      3. then deploy the 'chute.
      This implies a minimum amount of altitude to transition from powered flight to parachute-controlled descent (Sounds similar to altitude requirements for a successful auto-rotation or for recovery from a stall in fixed-wing aircraft).

Slashdot Top Deals

Don't tell me how hard you work. Tell me how much you get done. -- James J. Ling

Close