Hiller Flying Platform
Thread Starter
|
Senior User
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 452
Likes: 0
From: Mesa Arizona
Hiller Flying Platform
Has anyone ever heard of the Hiller Flying Platform?
It was developed in the 50's as a platform you would stand on and take off vertically. They say it is the closest thing to a flying carpet!
I remember seeing a special on it a while back and was fascinated by it. They had to scrap the project because the machine was too unstable. The "pilot" would propel and direct the platform by leaning one way or the other. The later models were too heavy and the pilot would get fatigued to the point where he could no longer direct it properly.
I wonder, with today's lighter weight material, more compact and powerful engines, and technology like the gyroscopes used in the Segway, if a better Hiller Flying Platform could be built?
I don't know how efficient they would be but I bet you would sell a TON of them!
JK
It was developed in the 50's as a platform you would stand on and take off vertically. They say it is the closest thing to a flying carpet!
I remember seeing a special on it a while back and was fascinated by it. They had to scrap the project because the machine was too unstable. The "pilot" would propel and direct the platform by leaning one way or the other. The later models were too heavy and the pilot would get fatigued to the point where he could no longer direct it properly.
I wonder, with today's lighter weight material, more compact and powerful engines, and technology like the gyroscopes used in the Segway, if a better Hiller Flying Platform could be built?
I don't know how efficient they would be but I bet you would sell a TON of them!
JK
Fleet Owner
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 29,941
Likes: 46
From: Drummonds, TN USA
You have to seriously wonder though...
The Flying Wing (YB-49) was another one that was way ahead of its time. The problem was then the same as for the Flying Platform - instability/control difficulty.
The answer came years later with more sophisticated electronics resulting in "Fly By Wire" control systems. Decades after the last YB was broken up for salvage, the Stealth Bomber was unveiled with essentially the same planform - an inherently unstable lifting body and (as opposed to the original design) with no vertical stabilizers. The YB-49 had relatively small "rudderlets", but it still had them. Yaw was mainly controlled by opposed flaps similar to speed brakes, the same as the B-2.
Edwards Air Force Base was named after a test pilot who flew the YB just before the program was cancelled. Both plane and crew were lost due to what is assumed to have been an unrecoverable flat spin resulting in centripetal forces that ripped the aircraft into three sections. It was determined that the aircraft was too dangerous to fly because human reaction times and yaw detection were insufficient to control the airplane in flight, particularly in the presense of wind shear.
(Or some-such)
With the development of computer augmented flight control systems though, it not only became possible - it was DONE.
So who knows? The FP just might come back...
The Flying Wing (YB-49) was another one that was way ahead of its time. The problem was then the same as for the Flying Platform - instability/control difficulty.
The answer came years later with more sophisticated electronics resulting in "Fly By Wire" control systems. Decades after the last YB was broken up for salvage, the Stealth Bomber was unveiled with essentially the same planform - an inherently unstable lifting body and (as opposed to the original design) with no vertical stabilizers. The YB-49 had relatively small "rudderlets", but it still had them. Yaw was mainly controlled by opposed flaps similar to speed brakes, the same as the B-2.
Edwards Air Force Base was named after a test pilot who flew the YB just before the program was cancelled. Both plane and crew were lost due to what is assumed to have been an unrecoverable flat spin resulting in centripetal forces that ripped the aircraft into three sections. It was determined that the aircraft was too dangerous to fly because human reaction times and yaw detection were insufficient to control the airplane in flight, particularly in the presense of wind shear.
(Or some-such)
With the development of computer augmented flight control systems though, it not only became possible - it was DONE.
So who knows? The FP just might come back...
Last edited by Greywolf; Jul 15, 2006 at 10:48 PM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Tomcat7742
General NON-Automotive Conversation
18
Oct 27, 2005 10:06 AM
Greywolf
General NON-Automotive Conversation
14
Jul 5, 2005 11:37 PM
