HN Explorer

25 comments

[ 4.7 ms ] story [ 67.7 ms ] thread
adlep
What about some visual demo - maybe a YT movie or few pictures on the web site. The idea sounds fantastic, but will it actually work well in practice? Good Luck.
sirclueless
Anyone have a video of these in action? They look like fun.
[deleted]
(comment deleted)
jerrya
Ooh, I like the design where there is no canopy and a propeller right in front of your face. There's a nice protective pillar.

I'm certain it's safe.

ratsbane
Sitting right behind that propwash with no windshield isn't going to be fun either. Even if you're cruising at 70 the wind is going to feel more like 140.
veritgo
Everyone’s dreamt of flying free as a bird. Nano is for the fun of flying

Interesting how true this must be. We've heard promise of practical personal flying machines for decades, usually complete with artists renditions or renders, but few have seemed to materialize yet.

Ultralights are probably the closest, fairly cheap and requiring little infrastructure. Just a seat with a big fan attached to a parachute really.

Even these though take a surprising amount of work to be able to operate safely.

savrajsingh
Iconaircraft.com is a realistic attempt at making flight more widely available. They are designing their aircraft around the "sport flight" rules of recent years, which mean you need less training but you can only fly in good conditions. They haven't shipped yet, however.
veritgo
Thanks for posting this, it looks fantastic, and as if it will actually hit the market.
Gianteye
I'm not quite clicking with the design. I'd figure you'd need at least the wing span of an ultralight to get that off the ground, plus a bit more for the weight of its fully paneled body. I'm just not seeing how you fit an engine and enough fuel for a reasonable flight in that package. The doubled wings buy you a little span, but it just doesn't seem to have enough surface area.
regularfry
I figure a rigid wing can have a more efficient aerofoil than an ultralight would do, plus these seem to go a fair bit faster.
edu
It seems it'll have a theoretical range of 70km. It's more a toy than a real plane (like JetSky vs. real boats).

Probably fun though!

ck2
Far edge of that wing hits the water first, you are going for a 180 degree tumble at full momentum.
nosse
You may not believe this, but I invented all of these concepts independently of these guys.

Someone want to hire me? I'm really innovative young engineer...

raquo
US definition of Ultralight requires that engine-off stall speed be at most 45km/h, and max speed at most 102km/h at full power in level flight.

flynano's "landing speed" is 70km/h, and "cruising speed" is ~140km/h, so it's not going to happen as an ultralight in US. It will probably be classified as an LSA (light-sport aircraft), which makes more sense, but requires a pilot's license.

crikli
It _should_ requires a license if the stall speed is that high; my Cessna stalls at around 77 km/h, seven more than this thing and it was very challenging at first, especially in gusting crosswinds.

I also wonder what the stall characteristics of that wing would be...I'm no aeronautical engineer but I'd be willing to be that the bottom falls out.

To their credit, the site mentions this: "If you’ve ever had a pilot’s licence you’ll fly Nano right out of the box. The rest of you will need to learn the simple rules of the air. Minimum red tape – maximum thrills." Implies a sport license to me (half the required instruction time of a regular private license and simper medical rules).

Edit: another issue/question...the Flynano only takes off from water so wouldn't that require a single-engine sea rating? IIRC that can't be had without a private pilot's license, unless you can do sport pilot primary training from the water (which I can't find an authoritative "no" on but I don't think the FAA allows that).

Retric
I don't understand all the hate around getting a pilot's license. Flight is dangerous and even with a fair amount of regulation and training plenty of people still mess up and die. There are many situations where the natural reaction of even a seasoned pilot will get you killed. EX: Letting go of the stick can be the correct thing to do, try thinking of that while spinning wildly and falling rapidly.

The LSA pilot's license is fairly easy to get. It takes 20 hours of instruction and some solo flights which you can for around around 2-3k. And a written test which seems reasonable before you fly something at 120km/h.

raquo
Absolutely no hate here. I myself wouldn't fly that thing without some considerable preparation. I just mentioned it because the aircraft was designed to fit into Europe's restrictions for the lightest aircraft category there, but it doesn't fit into US definition of ultralight, and the Engadget article linked in another comment says it does.
[deleted]
(comment deleted)
ColinWright
I'd rather go for a real 'plane:

http://www.google.co.uk/#q=cri-cri+aircraft

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colomban_Cri-cri

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGRB2UsH3AE

http://www.flight.cz/cricri/english/

Quoting from WikiPedia:

    The MC-10 Cri-Cri has a cruising speed of 170 km/h
    (92 knots, or 105.6 miles per hour) and a range of
    750 km (466 standard miles, 405 nautical miles).

    The MC-12 model has a cruising speed of 185 km/h
    (100 knots, or 114.9 miles per hour) and range of
    500 km (310.6 standard miles, 270 nautical miles)
gaius
Looks a bit Romulan if you ask me.
watmough
I don't see ailerons, but I do see wing sweep, so are they expecting this to be a steer left/right only type aircraft?

What about pitch control? There's going to be quite a pitch down moment with that high mounted engine.

And with the small wing giving a high wing loading, this aircraft looks like quite a little handful to fly.

That's worrying enough, without even thinking about stall / spin behavior.