Originally posted by twhitehead
I wonder what the laws are regarding actually using one. I suspect most countries simply don't have any laws.
They mentioned in the US anyway, if it is under a certain weight, 260 pounds(?) or so, you don't have to have a license to fly it. Of course 20 years down the line, if and when they get truly popular, new laws would come about, that is what congress is for, to make newly minted criminality, eh.
One thing I was wondering about, they mentioned the engine being 200 Hp, that is a lot of Hp to lift one person off the ground. I wonder what energy is being lost? Inefficiency in the blades? Could a more robust blade design get the power needed down to 100 Hp or less? There is energy clearly lost somewhere. They mentioned being able to lift a maximum of 120Kg, or 264 pounds. I imagine therefore that is the max downward thrust of the engine/blade combination. Does anyone have figures for other forms of downward thrust machines, like the Harrier for instance, what is the thrust/hp ratio? Here it is implied to be 200 hp for 264 pounds of thrust or about 1.3 pounds of thrust per horsepower. Anyone know how that compares to other machines, helicopters for instance?
Theoretically speaking, if that engine were to be powering a lift like an elevator where you get to use pulleys and such, 1 Hp is defined as the ability to lift 555 pounds one foot in one second. So 200 Hp COULD lift 110,000 pounds at the rate of one foot per second, or 3,400 pounds at 1 G, which on the surface looks like you could get 12 or more times the lift if you were more efficient at the thrust/power ratio. In other words, it looks like if things were more like 100 % efficient, you could lift a person off the ground with 15 Hp.