The Kneeslider

Doers Builders and Positive People

Hoverbike – the Twin Rotor BMW Boxer Powered Flying Motorcycle

By

Hoverbike - BMW boxer powered twin rotor hovercraft
Hoverbike – BMW boxer powered twin rotor hovercraft

If Chris Malloy’s Hoverbike works as it’s designed to work, there’s going to be a long line of customers waiting for a chance to get on board, this twin rotor BMW boxer powered hovercraft flying motorcycle will do more than give you the feeling of flying, you’ll BE flying.

The carbon fiber Hoverbike weighs 231 pounds with a maximum takeoff weight of 595 pounds. On just the primary fuel tank it has a range of 92 miles at 80 knots (92 mph), with a theoretical top speed of 172 mph and a maximum altitude of 10,000 feet! So far, all tests have been tethered so these performance figures are somewhat speculative, but if he gets into the next phase of actual untethered flight, we’ll know whether those numbers can be achieved.

Hoverbike in tethered hover test
Hoverbike in tethered hover test

Control is by the motorcycle style handlebars, twist grips control rotor thrust and deflection of the air vanes which provides forward and reverse, turns are controlled by turning the bars, somewhere in the near future are gyros for stability and explosive parachutes to bring the craft down in the event of engine failure or the rider can wear a chute, too. Counter rotating rotors eliminate the need for a tail rotor.

Malloy says the Hoverbike is actually designed for utilitarian purposes like search and rescue, power line inspection and the like, but I can’t see this staying out of the hands of thrill seekers who have always dreamed of a bike like this. He figures it will be classed as an ultralight in the US eliminating the need for a pilot’s license.

Personal hover type vehicles have a long history of great designs that never make it to market because they always seem to come up short in actual flight testing, but if there’s ever been one I would like to see make it to production, this would be the one.

Link: Hoverbike via Gizmag

Hoverbike inventor Chris Malloy
Hoverbike inventor Chris Malloy

Posted on Filed Under: Alternative thinking, Motorcycle Power Flight

-- Subscribe to The Kneeslider --

Be the first to know when something’s new!


Be sure to check out The Kneeslider’s motorcycle models listings.

Your purchases through ebay links on The Kneeslider may earn a commission for this site.



Comments

      • The top speed would have to be limited to under 65 and no more than 5 gallon tank, also no passengers or using it near any occupied building, or airport or where there is a group of people on the ground.

      • You’d Still need a Bike license But Just not a Pilots license its still considered a bke just its light enough to not be considered an aircraft so you will need a motorcycle license but not a Pilots license

        • It couldn’t be classified as a “bike”, It has no wheels, therefore not legal for highway operation.

  3. This is totally awesome! I have dreamed of a vehicle like this, so inspiring. The use of counter rotating props is also a very smart move. I wonder how the drive system works?

  4. Could be serious fun if it works! I wonder what the wind blast to the rider would feel like at speed, since the wind coming at the rider would be forced down through the front duct?

  6. Oh, hell, yes.

    Boxer powered and flying… fantastic. I want to see this work.

  9. Ooh, I am seriously torn on this one. I would absolutely love to take it for a spin. I can also think of oh-so-many ways to die on it. What if a strong gust hits you when you’re at a lower altitude and it flips you upside down? If you junebugs are bad, what about a Canadian Goose when your at few thousand feet? I really want to try it out but I am going to have to admit to being really scared of the outcome.

    • Opposed cylinders have nothing to do with gyroscopic effect or events. It’s the mass of rotating parts, not reciprocating parts, that generate gyroscopic forces.

      The flywheel, not the pistons and rods.

      As to how that is transmitted into directional control or influence, it’s just way beyond a simple example except to say a 20 lb flywheel of 12 inches diameter has many times (logarithmic) LESS force than the 1 lb tip of a rotating blade that is 6 ft in diameter at the same rpm.

      And the flywheel of a BMW Boxer is in the wrong directional plane for the common application of gyroscopic forces….not that it couldn’t be utilized…but in conjunction with the far greater forces of those twin rotors it will take more than the simple control mechanisms used by Sikorsky (not Wright as in another poster’s comments).

  11. Right, acceleration tilt from the inertia of the flywheel. How awesome would it be to show up at work on one of these? Forget about lane splitting…

    -todd

  12. I thought I had stumbled across the website for Popular Science magazine! PS has been infected with the personal-flying-vehicle virus since the 1920s, and of the hundreds of attempts appearing in their pages, none has actually made it to production. Two reasons: 1. Most of them didn’t work very well; there always were serious design flaws that needed “more work”; and 2. Liability; if you crash your bike or car, you do it on a roadway that is engineered to take it into account. You slide into other traffic or hit a light pole. That’s bad enough, but if two riders on flying bikes tangle, they’ll plummet into someone’s bedroom or crash on a tee-ball game. No manufacturer, big or small, can afford the resulting litigation. The FAA doesn’t have reams of rules and regulations just to annoy weekend fliers; those rules are in place to protect those in the air and on the ground.

    I appreciate the effort that Chris put into his hoverbike, but even if he can make it fly untethered (a very big “if” — note: the military doesn’t have them), he’ll have a hideous time trying to get it past FCC regulations, properly licensed and in the air. And MotoRandom makes a good point — I once hit a slow-flying Canada goose with my pickup at 10 mph and it wrecked the windshield. I hate to think what would happen to someone on a hoverbike at 100 mph; and to the folks having a peaceful picnic on the ground below.

    • All good points, but let’s see at least this one fly, and we’ll go from there, “Wright” ?

    • B50, getting past the FAA isn’t a design issue, it’s a government bureaucracy issue and says nothing about the operational viability of the Hoverbike. If he can get it flying, that’s all that’s necessary to show it works.

      There’s a grass airstrip very near my house and on many evenings, all sorts of ultralights fly over, low and slow with unlicensed pilots having a great time. All of the potential collisions with geese, of which there are many in my area, and all of the houses, schools and ball games they may fall on, exist, just like you say, yet, there they are, flying around. Don’t overestimate the obstacles, it can keep you from trying anything out of the norm.

      Whether the Hoverbike will succeed where so many have failed is an open question and the odds may be long, but I’d like to see what he can do.

    • FCC? people do fly powered paragliders, and ultralights. it would have similar regs.

      And birds don’t pop out of nowhere, In the air your’d typically have some decent viability. Its the deer that jump out from the hedges with zero reaction time thats the problem.

      Ya there are hurdles but here’s to hoping they can be overcome.

    • First off it is considered an ultralight/experimental therefor FAA/FCC has hardly anything to do with it. Secondly it takes the same risk as any other plane, I do not see the difference. And as for falling out of the sky? Why don’t you read the article again and make sure to carefully read the part that states the bike would need parachutes in case of emergency.

  13. if he get’s it flying it will never see much in the way of speed. look at the bottom of the fan ducts the directional vanes are very small and this is what he is using for forward motion, I think, no way with this will he ever see much in forward speed. if its classed as an ultra-light it will have very little in the way of regulation to deal with. with that said good luck in getting it flying??

    • For increased speed, all the rider needs to do is tilt the whole platform slightly forward, and the downblast would accelerate the rig quite nicely. Think of how a helicopter accelerates.

      • I know how a helicopter operates, heli’s are not ducted. I think tilting would not result in the top speed desired, but would create some other undesireable instability.

  14. Okay, so much for all the peanut gallery comments….hey knuckleheads, visit the project website and checkout the research. development, construction, etc…

    One or two of the more astute contributors here might notice and comment on the tremendous talent, skill and execution of this prototype. Ya thunk da average photoshop, grind, chop and hack, or endless varieties of “cafe racers” measure up to this guy’s efforts.

    Focus, just for a friggin second!

    You’re concerned if it will ever “fly”? How many trailer queens get the googly eyes and drools that never see a drop of petrol? How many CadCam “concept” bikes get rave reviews without ever a single component ever getting into reality?

    This is a serious example of the often touted KneeSlider mantra…and BTFW this guy went way beyond just shop talk and wet dreams.

    Damn outstanding accomplishment.

  15. And I’ll add, that in comparison to the several million dollar military research projects in “jet pack” propulsion, this has got a hellavalot more potential than a 15 – 30 second ride that just barely does more than go up and go down. Tremendous attention and knowledge just to get this far. And yet to come, stabilization in free flight and computer controls to compensate for what pilots know as “reverse command” during takeoff and landing.

    This guy is so far beyond just using a motorcycle engine.

    • Because it uses a motorcycle engine and because it’s featured on KneeSlider.

      Duh!

      Actually it’s much different from the aspect of COG and applied force and in ducted forces. A helicopter has the lifting (moving wing) above the COG, and does not utilize ducted (fan) forces. Also, in a “hovercraft, there is no directional control from the effect of a tail rotor or ducted tail aperture. Actually, in a true hovercraft, there would be no flight capability above the ground-effect altitude (which is inches above the pressure skirt).

      This is more truly a light-powered VTOL craft.

      • I had second thoughts about using the term hovercraft after posting this because the specs refer to a 10,000 foot ceiling, more of a VTOL aircraft, as you say. His name Hoverbike makes it easy to slide into the hovercraft terminology, but I would agree, it’s really isn’t one.

      • Let me add more specifically, a ducted fan VTOL. Helicopters are “moving wing” craft that rely on the lift forces (not downdrafts as commonly thought) over similar surface configurations as a fixed wing aircraft…except instead of forward motion to provide the differential in air pressure (which produces lift) the moving wing utilizes rotational speed to generate the pressure differential.

        A ducted fan does not directly utilize rotationally induced lift, but downforce as a function of pressure and velocity in a singular vector.

        And to further give example, a prop style airplane does not use “thrust” as a function of air compaction as much as it uses the horizontal application of lift…that is the rotating blade pulls, not pushes, the aircraft.

        • I think the physics of your statement, while eloquently stated, are misguided. A rotating blade cannot pull anything. It is the vacuum that is created in front of the propeller that allows the relatively high pressure air mass behind the propeller to push the blades forward in its quest to fill that vacuum. Sure, it’s all really just a technicality.

          A ducted fan does precisely what a non-ducted propeller does. It creates a low pressure cavity on one side of it. Whereas an open propeller scoops and flings much of the air out away from the tips while doing this a ducted fan directs all that energy behind the prop for less drag and a little more pressure directly behind it.

          If he’s given it this level of control, the pilot can always speed up the rear fan or add pitch to tilt the nose of the craft downward. This will cause it to move forward faster (picture a giant hand dangling this from a string and swinging it forward) more so than just redirecting a portion of the thrust from the props.

          I’d test fly it over a body of water. Just sayin’

          -todd

          • A ducted fan is more efficient, and the point of thrust is lower than relative to the cog. I think this thing is going to be very tricky to balance once you get above the ground effects and you have to balance the weight of the bike on, basically a column of compacted air. But other than that, it is clearly not a fixed wing aircraft, like an ultralight, I think the FCC would see it as a helicopter.
            Not meaning to dis on this thing, it is pretty cool I would love to be the test pilot!

  18. Paul —

    I appreciate the tremendous amount of skill and craftsmanship that Chris put into the Hoverbike — but I’ll have to see it fly where so many others have failed before I’ll say it’s a fabulous attempt. I’ve had my own share of fantasies involving personal aircraft, but I stand by my comments regarding litigation. There’s a difference between the Hoverbike and ultralightweights. Ultralightweights are essentially big kites and parachutes with engines attached; inherently stable and proven to overcome most ham-fisted operators’ attempts at screwing up. The Hoverbike is a big, solid, heavy machine that appears inherently unstable and probably will need sophisticated controls to keep it in the air. Any failure will send it to the ground; I hope the parachutes intended to bring it down softly don’t tangle in the spinning craft.

    I have sufficient familiarity with the legal industry to know lawyers will look at the Hoverbike with great anticipation of their commission on the lawsuits that would surely erupt after one fatal crash. That’s a tragedy of an overly-litigious society, but a reality nonetheless.

    Still, thanks for bringing this and other projects to The Kneeslider. Not all of them are winners, but you show us things we wouldn’t see otherwise, and the discussions are among the most thoughtful and knowledgable on the internet.

    • Those parachutes, called a ballistic recovery system, are packed tightly in a small container which is propelled away from the aircraft with a small rocket and deploys very quickly. They work quite well and are currently used on ultralights and other small aircraft.

    • Litigation…versus your comment…not…”a fabulous attempt”.

      Do you, or anyone else, think that this is an attempt at mass marketing a transportation method aimed at the skill levels of the common commuter?

      Wake up and smell the reality.

      This is an innovation using contemporary and available components to accomplish a specific objective. This isn’t aimed at consumerism, here’s the proof…assuming you have been too busy formulating your post than to take time and read the website…

      There is no mention of mass transportation, in fact, the website shows intended applications that do NOT include daily or commute use…

      And one fatal crash…ever read the DOT statistics?

      It’s being designed as a “utilitarian” vehicle, i.e. farm, or such. Now research the number of law suits filed against John Deere or Caterpillar and tell me there is not a viable market for equipment that can cause death or injury.

      And if you take the time, as anyone familiar with legal precepts, do you see any mention of use in other than utilitarian (restricted) use? And if you invoke product liability in the current context of operator liability, when was the lst time you saw a successful suit against a lawnmower manufacturer for injury due to the dumbazz actions of an owner trying to mulch paper with the blades faced upwards??

      You’re about as familiar with legal concepts as most secretaries in a law firm.

      That is, EVERY trial attorney looks at product liability as a source of income.

      And if that were the measure and limit of innovation, you’d still be holding your skirt up out of the mud to cross the street and the Internal Condemnation Engine would still be … got it yet??

      Geez,

  19. Interesting – wonder if he will get it to flay and get approval to fly it. I imagine the military might be interested. There might be restrictions on where it could be flown.

  20. WOW Look at that!!!!!! Mr Malloy has redesigned and re engineered the Piasecki ZV8-P AirGeep from the 1960’s. And Yes, it will fly just fine and dandy. The challenge is not in getting the AirGeep to fly; its getting it to stop or should I say land. You may call your creation a hovercraft but it is in fact a twin rotor ultra light helicopter and you must fly it just like a twin rotor helicopter.
    I am very impressed by your reimaging of this classic design and I wish you the best of luck in getting your SpeederBike to market.
    BTW: The Piasecki corporation is still around. They are called Boeing IDS RotorCraft these days. You may want to call for help with the flight controls and avionics package.

    • An intelligent observation. Of course there are significant differences, including purpose, payload and execution.

      But straight on. Excellent recall and reference.

      Takeoff and landing….VTOL solves itself…in every less than congested traffic where you assume a lane change is necessary. Again, I don’t see anything on the developer sight about making this a commuter product.

      Nor am I aware of any successful ZV8 deployments.

      Perhaps, Maybe, Oh Shucks, this guy noticed a niche that was not being funded by some multi-billion dollar aerospace subsidy and took things into his own hands…

      Or maybe he’s got a better grasp of the problems yet to be unveiled… the Flintstone foot/air brake…the singularity polarized momentum quantifier…the nearest pine tree…

      Thanks for revisiting that long ago article!!

  21. I hope he gets better results than Paul Moller’s ducted fan VTOL projects (both real and imagined) from the last (?) decades.

    Electronic stability & control has gotten a whole lot cheaper to develop – check out quadracopter controllers like Hoverfly or the homebrew stuff at DIYdrones. Not too long ago, you could only do that if your last name was DARPA.

  22. If you need a pilot, I’ve got 10,000+ hours of helicopter time and own 4 motorcycles, one of which is a BMW 1150 GS. Let me know when and where.

  23. DOCTOR (as in PH’d) Moller has had exceptional results in his pursuits. Not only has he licensed several innovations that are in current production and use, he has successfully become a multi-millionaire by virtue of the one true greatest accomplishment….government funded research.

    When observing a person’s efforts, you should not be focused on the immediate and obvious results that might shroud greater accomplishments in the original pursuit. Dr. Moller has contributed greatly and been rewarded financially for his contributions.

    If you doubt that statement, do a few patent searches (43) and then drive by his home. Doesn’t look the slightest bit unsuccessful to me.

    Perception is NOT reality. The lack of flying commuter cars with Joan Jettson at the helm is a blessing, far from a curse.

    • your intimation that government funded research is a “true greatest accomplishment” would seem to undermine any commentary you may have on the virtue, validity, or value of any private innovation. unless i’m reading you wrong…

      • Just read his post out loud with the voice of Homer Simpson – it’ll suddenly make sense.

  24. My one word, right after cool, would be dangerous! Ways to get hurt include…
    1 – It will want to tip upside down and drive you into the ground.
    2 – Anything getting sucked into the blade area will cause a crash, or worse.
    3 – touching down might result in the front fan casing snapping off, then it’s right in your face.
    4 – your wife will pin you down and beat you with it before you get to try it…

  25. He needs somebody like Redbull to thro some money at it. Also Bell and Williams developed a JetBelt following up the rocketbelt which flew for considerbly longer:Wiki:

    Bell Jet Flying Belt
    In 1965 Bell Aerosystems concluded a new contract with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to develop a jet pack with a turbojet engine. This project was called the “Jet Flying Belt”, or simply the “Jet Belt”. Wendell Moore and John K. Hulbert, a specialist in gas turbines, worked to design a new turbojet pack. Williams Research Corporation (now Williams International) in Walled Lake, Michigan, designed and built a new turbojet engine to Bell’s specifications in 1969. It was called the WR19, with a rated thrust of 195 kgf (1,910 newtons) and weighing 31 kg.

    The first free flight of the “Jet Belt” took place on 7 April 1969 at the Niagara Falls Municipal Airport. Pilot Robert Courter flew about 100 meters in a circle at an altitude of 7 meters, reaching a speed of 45 km/h. The following flights were longer, up to 5 minutes. Theoretically, this new pack could fly for 25 minutes and go up to 135 km/h.

    In spite of successful tests, the U.S. Army lost interest. The pack was complex to maintain and too heavy. Landing with its weight on his back was hazardous to the pilot, and catastrophic loss of a turbine blade could have been lethal.

    Thus, the “Bell Jet Flying Belt” remained an experimental model. On 29 May 1969, Wendell Moore died of complications from a heart attack he had suffered six months earlier, and work on the turbojet pack was ended. Bell sold the sole version of the “Bell pack”, together with the patents and the technical documentation, to Williams Research Corporation. This pack is now in the Williams International company museum. A version of this engine went on to power the later US Tomahawk cruise missiles.

  26. Yes! Just put a big ol’ pedestrian slicer on the front to split the geese in half! Hahaha. Come on people! Fabio took a goose to the face on a stinkin’ roller coaster, and does that stop you from climbing aboard one? I hope he gets some big-time funding, and PLEASE do some untethered test flights to put those other guys to shame. Get Travis Pastrana to do it–he’s tried everything else–he’s ready to move on. More importantly, he’s not afraid to wreck. Put a ‘chute on him and watch him crack that throttle! Stop worrying about the friggin’ pencil pushers of the U.S. and keep at it!

  27. Kudos to the man for building a real vehicle! So very tired of drawings with attached lies. Two things come to mind: Unstable in roll axis. The currently unproven performance stats would place it outside part 103 specifications for an ultralight.

  28. Great idea ! I’ll hang on to my BMW1150 GS boxer. Who know’s, I might be able to fly it around in the future.

  29. Super cool, maybe could have small hydraulic telescopic fans sticking out on the sides for better stability at low speeds, and rear thruster jets for more speed.
    Love it . please bring it to our Speedweekend on Ice next March.

  31. The way I look it at, it is absolutely no more dangerous than any other ultralight aircraft – and this one seems better engineered than most of those! The price is about spot on as well!

    Quit comparing it to motorcycles. Just because it has handlebars, a BMW powerplant and is featured on a motorcycle website doesn´t make it one. It´s an aircraft. Go ahead and compare it to other ultralights in the same price bracket.

    Litigation? Not an issue. There are literally dozens (if not hundreds) of small manufacturers of ultralight aircraft. They don’t seem to be bothered much by lawsuits and the like..

    ‘Unskilled pilots’? Again, not an issue: in the US ultralight pilots need not be licensed. This does not mean they are a bunch of incompetent knuckleheads prone to crashing their rigs all the time. In fact, serious incidents with ultralight aircraft are quite rare..

    As far as performance is concerend.. maybe it works, maybe it doesn’t. We won’t know until he tests the thing further. If it doesn’t meet the performance criteria set, there’s still no man overboard.. there’s nothing (but a shortage of cash) from stopping him strapping on one or two of those small jet engines to the back of the machine for forard thrust..

  32. I think it can work. At less that 254 pounds it would classify as an ultralight in the US, if speed did not exceed 55 MPH.
    There is a similar concept that is on on new Zealand using a backpack style lift pack
    http://martinjetpack.com/
    Kudos to the man for building it!

  33. First, this device relies of powered lift. Second, ballistic chutes need some deployment altitude (?). As a result, there is a “dead-man” curve (self explanatory) in the flight profile that will result in your wife’s rejected insurance claim, should any critical failure occur. As elegant as this design is, it has a lot of moving parts that are basically all critical.

    I have a gyrocopter folded up in a trailer next to the garage for the same reason…my wife.

  34. It’s cool! Motorcycles are cool……
    It’s techie, most motorcycles are fairly technical devices……
    It’s dangerous, motorcycles are dangerous….
    It could fall on someone if there’s a failure, a motorcycle can smash a pedestrian to paste if there’s a knob at the controls.

    There’s a limitless supply of armchair engineers and kitchen-table lawyers, they’ll always quack about their particular complaint. Big effing deal. Let’m.
    If we listened to them nothing ……and I mean NOTHING would ever be accomplished.
    Visionaries are routinely denigrated publicly, yet strangely….when their idea pans out those same detractors are usually the first ones to claim a supporting roll… “Oh yeah…I was behind him the whole time. I knew it’d work!”

    I hope he manages this project to fruition and that everyone sandbagging the project due to their one fear gets to eat a little crow. Your choice, boiled, brazed or roasted.

    Best of luck Chris!

    • X2. After reading all this last night I woke up with Pink Floyd’s “We don’t need no education” replaying itself over and over in my mind!

      Go Chris, Go.

    • That’s probably the geatest comment I have ever read. I copied it and will have it diplayed big as my screensaver.
      Thanks for lighting my day, Swagger, hope Chris will read it too!

  35. Give me the chance and I’ll test it above a lake or somewhere like that. I am ready to put a downpayment for this thing if it will work.

  38. My first thought was it’s the first phase of the air-scooter in Star Wars. Jaysus did I want one of those !

  39. I don’t get it apart from being afraid of heights, who is going to be able to see you on it at 10000ft this thing needs to be driven on the roads!!!!
    it looks ace just where it is about two feet off the ground

  40. I’d try it …….

    I have a suggestion for stability too … like the Harrier jump jet …. they use group of air jets at extremities of the craft to stabilise the thing and make it more maneuverable in hover mode. . I think this could be done to help the hover bike.

  41. Here.
    Just a quick ‘shop of what I want.
    [IMG]http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x43/b8917hy/hoverbikeQUAD.jpg[/IMG]
    Add a crashpod (like the formula one drivers have,
    give it massively redundant computer-controlled stability,
    and a vehicle parachute (APR).
    Then, you might have something I’ll be interested in.
    Bonus design feature:
    Make the fans fold up to vertical storage. Park it in the garage at night, not in a hangar.

  44. Hmmm. Unlike a conventional helicopter, there’s no chance of autorotating to a safe landing if the engine sputters or fails. And unlike a fixed-wing aircraft, there’s no chance of gliding to a potentially safe landing if the engine sputters or fails. And unlike a motorcycle, there’s no chance of coasting to a potentially safe stop on the shoulder if the engine sputters or fails.

    Those ballistic ‘chutes better be soon coming.

  45. Wouldn’t it be cool of this thing was air worthy. But I am very skeptical. Hope he doesn’t kill himself testing it.

  46. Take a look at the Hiller Model 1031-A-1 Flying Platform at the Smithsonian site. Done a while back, and why they didn’t continue.

    Wim

  47. very entertaining thread, and quite an engineering project. i am glad people just do stuff instead of asking for permission by their peers before attempting something as ludicrous as building a flying machine. cheers to all the builders.

  48. It’s an amazing project for sure. I wish him all the luck in the world at getting this project off the ground. No pun intended. I’ve been up in private aircraft quite a few times and I have to say that this thing could be quite hard to spot in time to avoid it.

  49. forgive me but in my world motorcycles have wheels, a BWM bike engine does not a motorcycle make,,,,,a BMW power hovercraft yes. Awesome engineering and concept just the same.

  51. Hmmm… Seems like back in the 1920’s Max Friz’s first engines (he was an aircraft engine designer) of the “boxer twin”design were developed for BMW. And now we see this classic design being used again for flying… I say it’s EPIC~! I need one to compete with my neighbor George Jettson…

  53. Looking at this machine my first thought is about the centre of gravity being high and not endowing it with natural stability. I wonder if the concept could be reworked so that elements of the riding position and controls remained, but the propulsion system was above the rider. Perhaps also some landing legs similar to those shown on the Martin Jetpack.

    As presently configured the device looks like an accident waiting to happen.

    Perhaps four rotors / propellors with the pilot suspended from the centre would enable greater stability?

  55. Wonderful idea. BTW, this is a hovercraft and not a helicopter because the propellers are fixed and do not employ a variable pitch blade or a tilt rotor for directional control. And as others have pointed out, the propeller pushes air downward whereas a helicopter’s rotors develop lift like an airplane’s wing surface.

    The control of direction on this design utilizes louvers located under the propeller housings. In my opinion, the louvers will need to be much longer and braced on both top and bottom. Any flex will result in the loss of maneuvering precision.

    Flying over water seems the ideal testing surface, but as a hovercraft pushes air downward for lift, water and packed earth will result in different flight behaviors.

    And like other have observed, there have been several similar hovercraft designs, some with three fans and some with four. What makes this one different is its small scale and simplicity. The fuel injected BMW motor seems ideal. I’d probably use the hubs as well.

    I wonder if it will fly,.. er ah .. I hope this idea gets off the ground, .. I mean… I hope this takes off, (oh the abundant aeronautical cliches.) Good luck!

  56. just google ‘flying hovercraft nz’ to see how ‘easy’ it is to make a hovercraft fly…for a kiwi that is…

  57. If your engine craps out at some low transitional altitude, you will create a superb smoking crater with the smoke coming off of what is left of your body 🙂

  58. The Piasecki VZ-8 Airgeep (company designation PA-59) was a prototype vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) aircraft developed by Piasecki Helicopter. The Airgeep was developed to fulfill a US Army Transportation Research Command contract for a flying jeep in 1957.[1] The flying jeep was envisioned to be smaller and easier to fly than a helicopter.

    General characteristics

    Crew: 2 (Pilot and co-pilot/gunner)
    Capacity: 3 passengers
    Length: 26 ft 1 in (7.44 m)
    Main rotor diameter: 2× 8 ft 2 in (2.5 m)
    Width: 9 ft 3 in (2.81 m)
    Height: 5 ft 10 in (1.77 m)
    Empty weight: 2,611 lb (1,184 kg)
    Gross weight: 3,670 lb (1,664 kg)
    Powerplant: 2 × Turbomeca Artouste IIC turboshaft, 550 hp (298 kW) each

    Performance

    Maximum speed: 85 mph (136 km/h)
    Cruise speed: 70 mph (112 km/h)
    Range: 35 miles (56 km)
    Service ceiling: 3,000 ft (914 m)

    Armament

    Provision for one recoilless rifle – not fitted

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piasecki_VZ-8_Airgeep

    The Designer had better add a few degrees of pitch to his design, just a bit of advice. Study history.