Ö÷²¥´óÐã

Seating position doesn't look great for power output. Recumbent cycling position might be better, and would reduce drag.

I agree with Toby, a recumbent position may be better. The wing design is beautiful though, and the flight looked good (if short!). Perhaps a light cord could be attached to the wing struts near the tips and light tugging be applied from the guys on the ground to act as ailerons to level the wings and improve lift during further test flights... Until the basic frame has been further developed that is.

Oh, and up the gearing a little! I hope someone keeps tweaking this delightful creation.

Wow, those wings are beautiful but I have to agree with Toby and Gareth. A bit more work required on:
Aero position of the cyclist
Lost power through flexing of the airframe
Gearing/propeller size & pitch

I hope you keep working on it, it could be a great flyer!

Good effort! bad position! Why bolt upright? you need to gain air speed but you're sat there like a parachute? I'm sure you have a reason.
Keep it up Jem, I'm living vicariously at least :)

"In the history of the world it's highly likely that man is by far the heaviest creature ever to fly using muscle power alone. I now hope it happens far more often and gets easier with every attempt."

Sadly we don't seem to have made much progress since Gossamer Condor in 1977 and Gossamer Albatross in 1979. Looking at the pilot position on those two aircraft compared to this one you are definitely not getting the best balance and power output. Mind you, it's an excellent effort considering the amount of time you had to design and build it!

I'll remember Bryan Allen.

I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I truly don't understand why you didn't investigate either recumbent-bicycle or hang-glider/microlight design. And your lack of roll control comes from a thing called "wind shear", where the air a few tens of feet above the ground moves significantly faster than the air close to the ground, so the wind speed over each wing is different. Basic hang-glider flight training. Missed opportunity.

Astonishing how so much effort can be so misdirected. Learned little from the earlier attempts. One of the crucial things of the Gossamer designs were their simplicity, the wing here might be beautiful but its hopeless, there will never be enough control at low speeds and that supermarket trolley castor on the front, come on! didn't anyone think of talking to Chris Hoy?

There is not a lot of difference between the upright and recumbent position, most of the drag is from the wing although a bit of fairing in front of the pilot will decrease the pilot's drag in half, but it is still a fraction of the wing drag.

A 3 metre (ten foot) 2 bladed propeller is usually as efficient as propellers get, bigger is just heavier.

A lot of human powered aircraft design is non-intuative and you have to crunch the numbers to find out exactly how strong and often even more important, how stiff the structure is.

See for another human powered aircraft and how that got on.

Non intuitive? Is that why it took so long? But even so its evident he's being pushed along the ground because he can't get enough speed, and as soon as they let go when he's off the ground, he loses control. One of the OTHER crucial things that was learnt on the Gossamers was Wash in-Wash out. And with this design there's absolutely no possibility of it. Just look at it. Hopeless! Was our money involved?

Great Jem that you got airbourne, modifications can now be made in seating position and if you use a professional cyclist in future who knows the time and distance that you be acheived.

Proof of principle. I hope that the the aircraft will continue to be developed by a volunteer group somewhere, rather than disappearing into a Ö÷²¥´óÐã warehouse.
The Gossamers were developed to win prizes intended to encourage practical human powered aircraft, though the whole concept seems to have faded from view in the years since.
Southampton university still use the concept as a training tool for their aeronautical engineering students.

The problem is the pilot’s weight!
I would suggest a re-design, so go back to the drawing board and incorporate helium to counter the Pilots weight, and then less effort will be needed to power the aircraft.

Helium is a very limited resource and would provide only very small amounts of extra lift. Better perhaps to put the propeller ahead of the wing to increase lift from it's airflow and the pilot prone to reduce drag.

As a schoolkid, we went to Manston & saw the Gossamer Albatross before it flew across the Channel. I met Don Dupont, & Bryan was always cycling past our school. I'm even in the documentary...which would have been a good starting place for the Bang Goes team! All those technical specifications are available, all the problems well known, so why has that flight been airbrushed or forgotten by the team when we already know what won't work? How to do it better 33 years on would be a worthy enterprise, not how to invent a paler imitation.

Arrg! Not the Helium in the wing "trick", Howie D! The wings hold 2 to 3 KG of air, replacing it with Helium would result in about a 1 to 1 1/2 KG reduction in the weight and there is the problem of making the wing gas-tight which may add the weight you save by using Helium in the first place.

Jem's aircraft looks like it is based on Velair, see with it's rear mounted propeller and rotating wingtips for ailerons although there is a copy of the Gossamer Condor plans that the late Paul MacCready used to sell at if you feel the need to build your own.

A great attempt Jem. We were cheering you all the way. There have been many comparisons with Paul Mc Cready and the Gossamer Condor/Albatross planes but no one seems to have mentioned the successful flight from Crete to Santorini by Kanellos Kanellopoulos in Daedalus designed and built by MIT. 74 miles in the air by human muscle! See Aeromodeller August 1988 for a full account.

There's plenty more potential in this aircraft - and pilot. It was a tall order to set up a new aircraft and teach the pilot to fly it all in the same day. We did add a pilot fairing later but made some other changes including the elevator angle which prevented getting better flights later that day. We also had crosswind conditions. In a light westerly there's no reason why flights the length of Lasham runway should not be possible. I think given the inexperience of the team and the short timescale, it's a great achievement. I like the simplicity of design. Hopefully it will be out again at the Icarus Cup event, Lasham 14-22nd July.

The (roll) control issue was solved by Gossamer Condor when they realised that once a turn was initiated, they needed to REVERSE the control input. Because of large wing span and relatively tight turn radius and very low airspeed, inner wing needed higher incidence than outer to maintain balance in the turn.

The article ibushell refers to should be on the Royal Aeronautical Society Human Powered Aircraft site dowload page at but it and other links cause an error page to be displayed but a copy can be seen at .

With regard to this lack of control in roll, I'm virtually certain what you experienced is actually due to sideslip caused by insufficient side areaforward of the CG. With the amount of dihedral you have plus the low CG & negligible rotational inertia I refuse to believe it's a spiral stability thing. I'd bet anything that if you put three or four symmetrical ribs horizontally as a fairing round the pilot covered in mylar it would handle perfectly , and you could kick through it in a crisis.

I would add an extra large carbon composite chainwheel in order to boost the RPM. Jem would need a longer run-up, and maybe a bit of assistance from the runners to begin with, but once in the air he would be able to go further using his own muscle power.

A plane called Musculaire was an upright riding position and won a kremer prize for carrying a passenger, and I think completing a figure of 8. MusculaireII went on to win speed prizes (recumbent). @U14576049 The Ö÷²¥´óÐã plane did have plenty of wash in and wash out capabilities, which were used. You cant see the degrees of difference between the wing sections in the photos. Plane was built in a few short months by novices with a small budget. A normal bloke pedals it off the ground. Phenomenal!

I really don't think this is a washin/out issue. The mc Cready Gossamer aircraft did indeed use wing warp to prevent the inboard wing dropping in tight turns ( which were induced by laterally tilting the canard elevator as the machines had no rudders). However they-as well as the Musculairs and the MIT Daedalus series were quite stable in level flight and could be corrected by small control inputs in yaw alone. Musculair !, built by Gunther Rochelt and his son Holger (the pilot) originally had dihedralled wingtips and ailerons, but these proved ineffective and were replaced by a continuously tapered wing in which dihedral was imparted by flight load. In this configuration it was extremely similar to the Ö÷²¥´óÐã aircraft; T-tail of similar area, pusher propshaft co-axial in the tail boom, nearly identical pilot position and support structure. The only significant difference is that Musculair had a fairing around the pilot providing a large side area near the CG/CP to inhibit sideslip. Since posting my comment (21 above) I've been told that Holger once took off without part of the fairing in place & found the aircraft uncontrollable.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

"In the history of the world it's highly likely that man is by far the heaviest creature ever to fly using muscle power alone"
Nope-
Just to be unnecessarily picky.

That is not sustained flight. This is:



See any difference?

I'm not a huge aeroplane enthusiast, but that was incredible! I was literally on the edge of my seat willing the plane to rise! My heart was in my mouth! Just more proof that Jem Stanfield can make anything!!

The recumbant postion offers far more power to the pedals allowing a much higher gear ratio to be used which in turn means less body movement and vibration and easier use of controls.As a cyclist if I stand to gain maximum weight over the pedal my 16 stone gives around 184 LBS to the pedal where as in recumbant postion I exert over 400LBS, more than double.

Where i may not be able to use a technical jargon like others..
Well done for getting the plane off the ground :-)... thats why bang goes the theory is SO good..seeing "experiments" visually and in a FUN way...makes science interesting.
again well done!

amazing! I do imagine the plane is unstable because of the single airscrew; the torque turning the left wing down.

What has happened to the model aircraft enthusiasts input??
The machine obviously requires a roll control mechanism to keep the craft on an even keel. Contollable trim tabs on the wing tips or warping wings viz. Bleriot monoplane are required. Well done for the technology!!!

Jem,Saw the attempt on Ö÷²¥´óÐã 1 tonight. I think that what is required is a stable speed across the ground. You said that the necessary speed was 12mph this could be achieved by using the small wheels you had as a front of a triangular frame that would have a normal cycle (Carbon fibre of course) wheel on the third point of contact. This third wheel would be driven by your pedalling to above the actual rotational speed required and the triangular base would offer more stability whilst on the ground. I also agree that a front propeller could offer more traction when airborn. Drive to the third wheel could be disconnected when in flight.

Jem, you and your team should be so proud of yourselves! It was scary yet beautiful to watch the plane take shape and of course to fly, and it cannot be denied that it is an amazing feat of engineering and of courage too! Seeing what you underwent was rather painful to watch (and I’m sure very draining for you, mentally and physically), but also very inspiring too. Thank you so much for putting yourself on the line in the name of science, inventing and engineering; you are a real hero to all who have a love of science and have a dream to fly!

What happened to my earlier post
Don't know anything about aircraft design but looking at the film the prop. drive reaction appeared to be tilting to the left & indeed that's what happened.
Just looked at Wright brothers plane & they used two contra rotating props to kill this problem. Seems you need left wing larger than the other, only over a limited speed though.
Also used wing warping mentioned above

Jem,

There are several positives coming out of your efforts at Lasham: your design generates enough lift; you generate enough power; the propeller is well enough matched to your output to get you airborne and the whole thing is light enough to fly while remaining strong enough to withstand some rough handling. To have achieved all this in a few weeks is nothing short of phenomenal.

You flew in the wake of pioneers. No doubt somebody told you that a certain Derek Piggott made the first man-powered aircraft flight in the UK in SUMPAC, an aircraft made by Southampton University, from the same runway in 1961. Here's hoping you get the chance (and the money) to develop your design. I am sure you and it would succeed.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

The design of the wing used is of a high aspect ratio, long and thin, which is ideal for converting speed to lift, however in nature wing design for low airspeed lift has evolved to use a low aspect ratio wing ie, a vulture whose soaring capabilities would seem to suggest a high aspect ratio, uses a low aspect ratio wing, the vulture has to land take on payload (a meal) and then take off from the ground at low airspeed with far greater control required and higher higher manoeuvrability

Will we be seeing more from this? The plane is undamaged so it doesn't make sense to stop now. I'd like to see how far this can fly with further flight practice and engineering tweaks. I guess Jem has to move on to other projects now. What will happen to the plane?

It should work , but you are losing a lot lift from your wings through to much flexing and it also affects your C of G. I recomend bracing the wing with some of your carbon string on leading and training edges, 1 third and 2 thirds on each wing down to the cycle frame base. This should prevent worp, flex, and keep that C of G, a king post would help. One could have cut back on boom strength. Back to the old days that I know more about.

Jem excellent job and great effort.
I feel learning from all the earlier work and successes could have helped greatly.
Much of Gossamer's and Daedalus' and other's details and experiences are in the public domain.
Canard design may have reduced weight / increased lift.
Puller prop could have directed flow over top of wing increasing lift.
Some bracing may have resulted in even lighter and more stiff structure.
Anyway, excellent feat and on Derek Piggott's patch !
Now improve on the "proof of concept" and learn to fly it . . .
Well done indeed to all the crew involved - more !!

Nice work so far! were you using remote servo controls for the flight surfaces? if so did you think about auto pilot? or even R/C remote pilot? leaving you free to peddle..
Very simple RC Heli Rate gyro's may be able to provide some assistance in keeping you steady, or alternatively a Raspberry Pi or Arduino controller might be able to fly for you.

Jem, great work on the plane in such a short timescale. But, along with the comments already raised, I think I can help you get it airborne for longer.
From watching the show, there is a lot of unnecessary weight in both the aircraft and your clothing & kit. Every gram on that you take into the air costs in terms of input energy. So bolts that are too long or the wrong materials will cost, as well as your clothing and video cameras. It's time to strip down to the Lycra and maybe only go with one camera. I know it's for tv, so you must have at least one.
Maybe lose one wheel and rely on a single wheel and human assistants while you're on the ground. I like the previous commenters idea of the carbon composite chain-wheel, too.
Keep up the great work. I'd love to see this fly further and longer on a future episode.

Jem

You need a microcontroller to do the flight stabilisation for you so you can concentrate on pedalling for take off. The microcontroller would adjust your controls for level flight if there is no input from you - meaning you'd just pedal as hard as you can until you had enough height to provide inputs.

Get in touch if you're interested - we're electronic engineers with experience in microcontroller model aircraft stablisation with electronic gyros.

Maybe with ultra light components, the right hill and lying down, he could take off unaided

Jem,
You only have rudder and elevator controls. You don't have any means to control roll so as soon as the handlers let go the plane starts rolling.
Imaging the plane rolled right wing low and therefore sideslipping to the right. The vertical control surface, the rudder, is set low, so with the sideslip, generates a right wing low rolling moment. What is your control strategy? Steer right into the sideslip or left away from the sideslip? if you steer right the left (outboard) wingtip will then be moving faster than the right wingtip generating more lift on the left wing than the right and increasing the right wing down rolling moment. Not good. The only way you have to increase the lift on the right wing is to steer left so that the right wing is moving faster than the left. But then the extra drag on the right wing (due to the extra lift) will oppose the turn.
With no roll control the only way to control roll is to steer left/right to increase lift on the right/left wing and with such a large wingspan the extra drag due to the extra lift will oppose the turn you are trying to make. But if you do manage to stay airborne you will be weaving around steering left and right to keep the wings level and with no control over the direction of flight.
You need some form of roll control e.g ailerons or wing warping. If you use ailerons, servos as for the rudder and elevator, would be a good idea given the flexibility of the structure. Obvious problems are that ailerons would increase both the bending and twisting moments on the wing spar and could twist the wing in the wrong sense diminishing or even negating the effest of the aileron. That is, with a flexible strucure aileron trailing edge low will twist the wing trailing edge high. Inboard ailerons might be a solution.
You might object that it is difficult to cope with three controls. The control you need least is the rudder. Aeroplanes are controlled in turns by rolling in the intended direction of turn e.g. right wing low to turn right, then pulling back to increase lift. Check it out in the sailplane. You only need the rudder to line up with the runway in a crosswind. I don't see crosswinds as a problem in this case.

Good luck.

Just been watching birds who don't have a rudder but a tail which twists, does this both yaw & roll in one action & even pitch if moved up & down.
Seems you may only need two actions:
twist tail for yaw & roll
wag tail for pitch
Cutting aileron load on wing, although may lead to unrecoverable nosedive maybe better out front in clean air.
This is probably rubbish as I know nothing of aircraft flight.

Jem, you're my hero!
You never fail to amaze me with the incredible things you do on Bang, but this takes the cake so far, it's like something from fiction but you did it for real!
I love how maths and science can lead to such a beautiful moment like when you left the ground, it was inspiring!
Well done to you and your team! :)

Jem became airbourne on Saturday, April 28th under his own power as you can see at (at the bottom of the page). OK, so it was a human powered hovercraft but he flewand he did it very easily. The propeller was left off for health and safety reasons.

Phenomenal stuff...just wonderful to watch. As a schoolteacher of very religious Jewish boys who aren't allowed TV at home, I've been keeping them updated as to your weekly exploits with the plane. They'll be delighted and amazed to hear that you've succeeded...

I'm not ashamed to admit there was a tear in my eye watching that. Good on you and all your efforts in bringing science alive. For a future challenge, how about desalinating sea-water?

Great try Jem, but the seating position did look a too upright and unstable, with more stability and a reclined position more power could be applied and a greater flight distance achieved. By the way what was the music used in the programme during the flight sequences?

Brilliant effort but you always turned to the left. I think your wing was twisting under load because the the wing beam section was not symmetrical. A circular section would have been better.
Quick solution-turn the beam though 90 degrees so it is bending along the weak axis and there should be no tendency to twist.

Hi Jem, I love the challenges you do.

I see two things which could help:

First is use ground for gaining take-off speed. E.g. power the ground wheel as well. So there should not be a problem to gain the take-off speed.

Second think is ‘automating’ the take-off. I would focus on an ‘autopilot’ to help keep the plain on ground till take-off speed is reached and then to switch it to an ‘up’ mode. In the last take-off you gain high too quickly resulting in speed loss and landing. :)

Hope there will be at least 5 minute in the next series.

Keep pushing,
Jarda

Jem, great effort with the flight, but do you realise you are not using anywhere near your body's full potential. I have a design for a plane to enable human powered flight that would get you up and away! Please contact me to discuss.