If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(C|Net) Video I'll see your Heli-cat, and raise you a S.H.I.E.L.D. Helicarrier   (news.cnet.com) divider line 39
    More: Video, S.H.I.E.L.D., technology and society, rotors, S.H.I.E.L.D. Helicarrier, hobbyists  
•       •       •

8760 clicks; posted to Video » on 27 Aug 2012 at 11:44 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



39 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-08-27 11:52:47 AM
Watch with the sound off.
 
2012-08-27 11:55:13 AM
turn down video sound,

CRANK UP YAKKITY SAX
 
2012-08-27 11:58:26 AM
That's kinda neat, I guess. Definitely not cooler than Heli-cat, though.
 
2012-08-27 12:15:22 PM
The music...it...it burns...gah! I can't unhear it. It's in my head. Halp!
 
2012-08-27 12:45:55 PM
Now to make Heli-cat land on Helicarrier...
 
2012-08-27 12:52:39 PM
We have to build a full size version of this! Screw the consequences... We can find a practical application for the damned thing after its been made...
 
2012-08-27 01:09:53 PM
Seems a little small...

/That's what she said?
 
2012-08-27 02:01:21 PM

Tobin_Lam: That's kinda neat, I guess. Definitely not cooler than Heli-cat, though.


THIS !
 
2012-08-27 02:10:46 PM
Can a guy with a bow shoot it down with 2 arrows?
 
2012-08-27 02:15:12 PM

Funbags: Can a guy with a bow shoot it down with 2 arrows?


Well, the model is 50" long and 38 ounces, so if someone can't take that out with 2 arrows, I'd be surprised
 
2012-08-27 02:24:08 PM
Further proof that with enough lift, you can fly a brick house if you want to.
 
2012-08-27 02:46:51 PM

Subby's Mother: Funbags: Can a guy with a bow shoot it down with 2 arrows?

Well, the model is 50" long and 38 ounces, so if someone can't take that out with 2 arrows, I'd be surprised


Its 90% foam.
Nothing happens unless they nail a rotor.
 
2012-08-27 03:29:22 PM
Heh...

it's about the same size as the version sold at SDCC this year. I know it's foam, but still... not too shabby.
 
2012-08-27 04:07:24 PM
How big would it have to be to be able to launch R/C model jets?
 
2012-08-27 04:34:22 PM

way south: Subby's Mother: Funbags: Can a guy with a bow shoot it down with 2 arrows?

Well, the model is 50" long and 38 ounces, so if someone can't take that out with 2 arrows, I'd be surprised

Its 90% foam.
Nothing happens unless they nail a rotor.


except that the thing would have an arrow stuck in it. I imagine it would throw off the balance pretty badly in flight. The thing looked wobbly as it was, the arrow couldnt help.
 
2012-08-27 04:56:03 PM

jayessell: How big would it have to be to be able to launch R/C model jets?


Forget that, can you imagine landing on the fking thing? THAT would be a feat.
 
2012-08-27 05:27:37 PM

orclover: Further proof that with enough lift, you can fly a brick house if you want to.


CH-47 is sufficient proof of that.
 
2012-08-27 06:36:51 PM

LoneVVolf: orclover: Further proof that with enough lift, you can fly a brick house if you want to.

CH-47 is sufficient proof of that.


Wasn't that originally what was said about the F4 phantom II?
 
2012-08-27 07:15:26 PM

jayessell: How big would it have to be to be able to launch R/C model jets?


Can you make an RC jet that small?
 
2012-08-27 08:15:04 PM
www.technovelgy.com
 
2012-08-27 08:42:33 PM
Somebody tell me if my math is correct: At 50 inches long and 38 ounces this thing obviously has enough lift to fly. A Gerald R. Ford class carrier is 1092 feet long, or 13104 inches long.

13104 / 50 = 262.08
262.08 * 38 (ounces) = 9959.04
9959.04 / 16 = 622.44

That tells me that if this was 1:1 scale, and the same length as a Gerald R Ford class carrier, it would have to weigh no more than 622 lbs to be able to fly. Assuming proportional lift from the rotors. I have a feeling my math is waaaaaaaaaaaayyy off.
 
2012-08-27 08:57:08 PM

DashFieldpaint: Somebody tell me if my math is correct: At 50 inches long and 38 ounces this thing obviously has enough lift to fly. A Gerald R. Ford class carrier is 1092 feet long, or 13104 inches long.

13104 / 50 = 262.08
262.08 * 38 (ounces) = 9959.04
9959.04 / 16 = 622.44

That tells me that if this was 1:1 scale, and the same length as a Gerald R Ford class carrier, it would have to weigh no more than 622 lbs to be able to fly. Assuming proportional lift from the rotors. I have a feeling my math is waaaaaaaaaaaayyy off.


I was taking the piss out of someone's steampunk airship design once, and I calculated that you'd need about one million horsepower for a 10,000 ton airship to be lifted by thrust alone (no mean feat for steam lol).

So, a 90,000 ton ship....
 
2012-08-27 09:44:21 PM
Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy:
I was taking the piss out of someone's steampunk airship design once, and I calculated that you'd need about one million horsepower for a 10,000 ton airship to be lifted by thrust alone (no mean feat for steam lol).

Cavorite and sheer coolness provide the difference in lift.
 
2012-08-27 10:12:59 PM

orclover: Further proof that with enough lift, you can fly a brick house if you want to.


data.whicdn.com
 
2012-08-27 10:25:23 PM

wildcardjack: jayessell: How big would it have to be to be able to launch R/C model jets?

Can you make an RC jet that small?


assuming it was a foam airplane and a ducted fan (not a true jet) you probably could make it work. They have power to weight ratios such that they can basically do VTOL maneuvers.
 
2012-08-27 11:04:23 PM
Its a nice warm-up.
Now build something more realistic.

dl.dropbox.com 

/The Banshee makes the Helicarrier look like a bathtub toy.
 
2012-08-27 11:20:12 PM

orclover: Further proof that with enough lift, you can fly a brick house if you want to.


Approve: 
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-08-28 12:57:23 AM
Wow, so the dude built a nice foamboard body for a standard quadcopter with 3-axis gyros. Sure it looks kinda cool, but those of us in the RC aviation hobby are literally rolling our eyes at all the ERMAHGHERD over this thing. It ain't that difficult folks.
 
2012-08-28 02:28:26 AM
Why has no one built one of these quadrotor things big enough to get on and fly? Think snowmobile/motorcycle size. That guy made the two rotor land speeder thing, and it works and lifts him. So a quadrotor thing should be a foregone conclusion. WHY??
 
2012-08-28 02:31:16 AM

2words1finger: Wow, so the dude built a nice foamboard body for a standard quadcopter with 3-axis gyros. Sure it looks kinda cool, but those of us in the RC aviation hobby are literally rolling our eyes at all the ERMAHGHERD over this thing. It ain't that difficult folks.


I don't believe anyone here was commenting on the difficulty.
 
2012-08-28 04:10:02 AM

2words1finger: Wow, so the dude built a nice foamboard body for a standard quadcopter with 3-axis gyros. Sure it looks kinda cool, but those of us in the RC aviation hobby are literally rolling our eyes at all the ERMAHGHERD over this thing. It ain't that difficult folks.


Yjis.

Though I wouldn't mind trying to land mr mSR on it.
 
2012-08-28 06:48:01 AM

lionfish: Why has no one built one of these quadrotor things big enough to get on and fly? Think snowmobile/motorcycle size. That guy made the two rotor land speeder thing, and it works and lifts him. So a quadrotor thing should be a foregone conclusion. WHY??


Like the VZ-7?
dl.dropbox.com

I think the problem may be the lack of redundancy in a four rotor system. You'd either need to double up the engines (like Moller did) or ride without it. Either that or the added difficulty of adding computer control.
...Or the lack of interest in building flying motorcycles to begin with, even tho the technology is readily available.
A small aircraft manufacturer should have been able to knock one out in a heartbeat, they just don't.

Come to think of it, there hasn't been much development for larger quad rotors either.
The only program that comes to mind is the Boeing QTR.

dl.dropbox.com

/It would probably solve the redundancy problem by cross feeding power from the opposing engine, like the Osprey does.
 
2012-08-28 07:13:11 AM
I seem to be not impressed.. I mean, it's a quadcopter, with some foam built up to make it look like a carrier. I suppose I could give him props for doing it while keeping it balanced?

I'm more impressed with the delorean quadcopter
Link
 
2012-08-28 08:20:57 AM

way south: Come to think of it, there hasn't been much development for larger quad rotors either.


and for good reasons
The bigger the rotor, the more eficient it will be.
You have some gain with twin-rotor, because you don't need a tail-rotor, but more than 2 always mean less efficiency.
For models it doesn't matter that much, and a quad-rotor is mechanicaly much simplier than a "real" helicopter -not cyclic-pitch needed
 
2012-08-28 08:30:11 AM
i.qkme.me
 
2012-08-28 09:44:06 AM
It's been done: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L75ESD9PBOw
 
2012-08-28 10:38:17 AM

On-Off: way south: Come to think of it, there hasn't been much development for larger quad rotors either.

and for good reasons
The bigger the rotor, the more eficient it will be.
You have some gain with twin-rotor, because you don't need a tail-rotor, but more than 2 always mean less efficiency.
For models it doesn't matter that much, and a quad-rotor is mechanicaly much simplier than a "real" helicopter -not cyclic-pitch needed


Quads start making sense once you get really, really heavy loads to carry. You can only make the rotor blades so long before you run into problems with structural stiffness. They become impossibly heavy or you end up with the rotor blades running into the ground on landing.

The biggest problem with the SHIELD Helicarrier (the full-scale one) is that it's an aircraft carrier. Even assuming each of the four fans is carrying a modest 15,000 ton load, then a 100-foot diameter fan is producing a 613 mph wind flowing into the disk. So you're then having to land a fighter plane in beyond-hurricane-force turbulence, and that's assuming the ship is flying in calm air.

And the wind downstream of the fan is twice the speed at the disk, so the helicarrier is in effect a supersonic air cannon that would obliterate any structure beneath it. And even with an ARC reactor to power the turbines so you didn't have to go nuclear, the amount of heat produced would be staggering. Frankly, the cloaking device is just hilarious, because nobody NEEDS to see you. They'll hear you coming from miles and miles away, or spot the giant plumes of superheated air on thermal. Hell, weather radar would pick up the exhaust plumes, so stealth technology doesn't work either.
 
2012-08-28 11:46:12 AM

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: On-Off: way south: Come to think of it, there hasn't been much development for larger quad rotors either.

and for good reasons
The bigger the rotor, the more eficient it will be.
You have some gain with twin-rotor, because you don't need a tail-rotor, but more than 2 always mean less efficiency.
For models it doesn't matter that much, and a quad-rotor is mechanicaly much simplier than a "real" helicopter -not cyclic-pitch needed

Quads start making sense once you get really, really heavy loads to carry. You can only make the rotor blades so long before you run into problems with structural stiffness. They become impossibly heavy or you end up with the rotor blades running into the ground on landing.


I was more wondering if the simplicity of the quad built around four ducted fan units would give us both the simplicity we need and just enough efficiency to make it worth the trouble. Side benefit of using ducted fans being that the vehicle looks less stupidly dangeorus.

/Or go to eight fans for redundancy, four front and four back.
 
2012-08-28 08:22:20 PM

DashFieldpaint: Somebody tell me if my math is correct: At 50 inches long and 38 ounces this thing obviously has enough lift to fly. A Gerald R. Ford class carrier is 1092 feet long, or 13104 inches long.

13104 / 50 = 262.08
262.08 * 38 (ounces) = 9959.04
9959.04 / 16 = 622.44

That tells me that if this was 1:1 scale, and the same length as a Gerald R Ford class carrier, it would have to weigh no more than 622 lbs to be able to fly. Assuming proportional lift from the rotors. I have a feeling my math is waaaaaaaaaaaayyy off.


Your math is correct, but the problem is that nature doesn't scale linearly: Square-cube law.
 
Displayed 39 of 39 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report