Re: ProtoBike VTOL Flying Motorcycle thingy

[George Black]

"ops" > wrote in message
...
:
: The hard drives are for Matt - an over the phone update (MTOG)
:
: Wonder what happens it the company after the 25th January 2004?
:
: rm
:
A firm that builds hard drives is a reputable aircraft builder ?
Looking at the presentation it's very airy fairy with no details.
And its not even April 1

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 11:36:37 -0800, "John Smith"
> wrote in Message-Id: >:

>There's a company named ProtoScience in the U.S.A. that is making "personal
>VTOL" vehicles that look like a flying motorcycle. Seems they are building
>a couple hundred of them for the military (known as VerLiVee's) and will
>also make them available to civilians under the name ProtoBike VTOL. I sure
>would like to have one. Looks like fun. Protoscience isn't really
>advertising them, but supposedly they can be bought by civilians for a mere
>65 grand. Visit www.ProtoScience.com/protobike.html for information.

I can't imagine being exposed to a 300 mph slipstream.

[Kyler Laird]

Larry Dighera > writes:

>I can't imagine being exposed to a 300 mph slipstream.

I can. It's not a pretty thought. Half that speed for brief
periods is enough to wear me out for the day.

I'm trying to figure out the advantage of the motorcycle-style
seating. There certainly appears to be plenty of aircraft
ahead of the rider. 'seems like a good place for the pilot's
feet. Also, since it's "fully aerobatic", it seems foolish to
have a "sit-on" design. Maybe it's only rated for negative
Gs to the limit of the handlebars.

My favorite part is "Military versions can carry 500 lbs of
ordinance". Are they planning to carry paper versions of all
of the new laws allowing military aircraft to shoot civilians?
(Yes, I suspect it's just a dumb spelling mistake like "can go
anywhere on a moments' notice".)

'course I'd sign up in a heartbeat for a real, usable version
at that price.

--kyler

[studentpilot]

Jim Bede's name on the prospectus somewhere?


--
studentpilot
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted via OziPilots Online [ http://www.OziPilotsOnline.com.au ]
- A website for Australian Pilots regardless of when, why, or what they fly -

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 01:08:30 GMT, Kyler Laird >
wrote in Message-Id: >:

>Larry Dighera > writes:
>
>>I can't imagine being exposed to a 300 mph slipstream.
>
>I can. It's not a pretty thought. Half that speed for brief
>periods is enough to wear me out for the day.

I suppose, if one takes advantage of a powerful enough turbine, with
so little weight, the thrust to weight ratio would be remarkably high
in comparison to most other aircraft. That could enable a vectored
lift design with remarkable specifications. Such a design would be
neutral to unstable, and a computerized stability/control system could
provide intuitive user input for pilot control. I would expect the
operation time to be limited though.

>I'm trying to figure out the advantage of the motorcycle-style
>seating. There certainly appears to be plenty of aircraft
>ahead of the rider. 'seems like a good place for the pilot's
>feet.

So you would agree, that the astride-a-rocket external seating design
is unworkable? Perhaps a fully reclining, well faired, form fitting,
deeply impressed, operator's position would work if a matching,
faired, flight suit and helmet design were employed.

>Also, since it's "fully aerobatic", it seems foolish to
>have a "sit-on" design. Maybe it's only rated for negative
>Gs to the limit of the handlebars.

Ha ha.

I would expect that a suitable harness could be fabricated to retain
the pilot.

>My favorite part is "Military versions can carry 500 lbs of
>ordinance". Are they planning to carry paper versions of all
>of the new laws allowing military aircraft to shoot civilians?
>(Yes, I suspect it's just a dumb spelling mistake like "can go
>anywhere on a moments' notice".)

It looks like a fast buck artist looking a NASA development grant to
me. If you go to the home page, there is no way to navigate to the
personal VTOL vehicles page. Who knows...?

>'course I'd sign up in a heartbeat for a real, usable version
>at that price.
>
>--kyler

The OP says that's possible now. I'm sure ProtoScience will gladly
accept your deposit, just like Bede did with the BD-5 in the mid '70s.

[Kyler Laird]

Larry Dighera > writes:

>>I'm trying to figure out the advantage of the motorcycle-style
>>seating. There certainly appears to be plenty of aircraft
>>ahead of the rider. 'seems like a good place for the pilot's
>>feet.

>So you would agree, that the astride-a-rocket external seating design
>is unworkable?

No, just ridiculous.

On a motorcycle, it makes sense to scrunch one's body into that
shape to fit nicely astride the engine, and it's not a huge problem
to be unable to look up (or comfortably look forward).

This thing, in comparison, is huge. You could still be "astride-a-
rocket" with your feet and face forward. The difference in comfort,
vision, and control would be immense.

>I would expect that a suitable harness could be fabricated to retain
>the pilot.

That'd be interesting. Would it lock the pilot in a humped-back
position? If so, it'll be awfully uncomfortable and restrictive for
landings. If not, that first time you stretch up in a 300MPH wind
should be quite an experience.

--kyler

[ops]

The hard drives are for Matt - an over the phone update (MTOG)

Wonder what happens it the company after the 25th January 2004?

rm

John Smith wrote:

> There's a company named ProtoScience in the U.S.A. that is making "personal
> VTOL" vehicles that look like a flying motorcycle. Seems they are building
> a couple hundred of them for the military (known as VerLiVee's) and will
> also make them available to civilians under the name ProtoBike VTOL. I sure
> would like to have one. Looks like fun. Protoscience isn't really
> advertising them, but supposedly they can be bought by civilians for a mere
> 65 grand. Visit www.ProtoScience.com/protobike.html for information.
>
> Enjoy!
>
> John (When emailing me directly, remove the underscores from my posted
> email address)
>
>
>
>

[Ron Natalie]

"Kyler Laird" > wrote in message ...

>
> I'm trying to figure out the advantage of the motorcycle-style
> seating. There certainly appears to be plenty of aircraft
> ahead of the rider. 'seems like a good place for the pilot's
> feet. Also, since it's "fully aerobatic", it seems foolish to
> have a "sit-on" design. Maybe it's only rated for negative
> Gs to the limit of the handlebars.

Of course, that way you can do all those Xtreme motorbike
tricks...

[Ron Natalie]

The Rutan crew while testing one of their UAV designs did set it up
so a pilot could ride sitting astride the thing so they wouldn't lose the
prototype in a control automation failure.

[Ron Natalie]

"George Black" > wrote in message ...
>
> "ops" > wrote in message
> ...
> :
> : The hard drives are for Matt - an over the phone update (MTOG)
> :
> : Wonder what happens it the company after the 25th January 2004?
> :
> : rm
> :
> A firm that builds hard drives is a reputable aircraft builder ?
> Looking at the presentation it's very airy fairy with no details.
> And its not even April 1

They don't seem to be building hard drives either. Their whole
web page is full of vaporware.

[ops]

George Black wrote:
> "ops" > wrote in message
> ...
> :
> : The hard drives are for Matt - an over the phone update (MTOG)
> :
> : Wonder what happens it the company after the 25th January 2004?
> :
> : rm
> :
> A firm that builds hard drives is a reputable aircraft builder ?
> Looking at the presentation it's very airy fairy with no details.
> And its not even April 1
>
>


Its the domain name that expires then.