Flexo From St. Helena, joined Mar 2007, 406 posts, RR: 0 Posted (7 years 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 6189 times:
Ok we all know what are the biggest aircraft ever built as they get plenty of attention in the forums here. But what about the small ones?
What is actually the smallest "flying machine" that was ever able to take a full grown human into the skies (If measured by MTOW or wing span I don't care)?
To make it a little more difficult it should be able to:
- Land and take off without help and on even terrain
- Stay in the air for at least an hour
Flyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (7 years 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 6146 times:
Although this may not be what you are looking for, I would venture to say that this is the lightest weight flying device that can carry aloft a human and meet your requirements. They are usually in the 40-80lb range...
Powered Paragliders (my next hobby, I think)
There are also strap on motors for hang-gliders allowing for takeoff from a level field with no wind. A skilled hang glider pilot, when assisted by one, and remain aloft for hours and travel great distances...
Avioniker From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 1109 posts, RR: 11
Reply 6, posted (7 years 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 6130 times:
BD-5: The single-seat fuselage was miniscule, barely 4 m (13 ft) long. The wing was mounted low and spanned just over 6.4 m (21 ft) and the airplane took-off and landed on tiny, retractable, tricycle landing gear. The factory offered a set of shorter wings (4.3 m/14 ft 4 in span) but almost no one flew with them.
Cri-Cri: The tiny Cri-Cri has a wingspan of 16.1 ft (4.9 m) and is a mere 12.83 ft (3.9 m) in length.
Very close to a draw although the BD had a much larger fuselage volume.
Now if I can only find my 1969 Oshkosh pics. . .
One may educate the ignorance from the unknowing but stupid is forever. Boswell; ca: 1533
ATCT From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 2350 posts, RR: 37
Reply 8, posted (7 years 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 6084 times:
I believe according to Guiness it is the Bumblee pictured above. The span is tiny though it might weight more than a Cri Cri.
Looking at the Cri-Cri though I have seen alot of ultralights (microlight in some ares of the world) that are similiar in size and weight. The "Air-Bike" comes to mind. Now if you mean certified aircraft in the FAA sense of the word, then the Bumblebee is your plane.
"The way to get started is to quit talking and begin doing." - Walt Disney
BoeingOnFinal From Norway, joined Apr 2006, 476 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (7 years 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 5926 times:
Those machines are freakishly small. I mean, any aircraft that would shift the C of G out of the forward limit when looking forward to see the instruments is to small for me.
Quoting Flexo (Reply 7): It seems like the Bumblebee needs a lot of speed with that small wingspan or am I off here?
Well, being a biplane and probably very light, I would assume it is not that bad at all. And without assuming to much, that little thing looks extremely unstable on ground being very tall compared to a small wheelbase and having a C of G quite high. Would be interesting to know the stallspeed though.
Lehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Reply 14, posted (6 years 12 months 2 days ago) and read 5731 times:
Viruses can't fl -- wait you mean like airborne bacteria? C'mon, they aren't flying (just falling with style ) -- and it just isn't voluntary. With a strong enough wind, we could all fly whether we want to or not, but that doesn't mean we're in control of the flight path.
I'd do an emergency fuel dump being airborne for an hour like that.
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
Starlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17188 posts, RR: 66
Reply 15, posted (6 years 12 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 5706 times:
Quoting Lehpron (Reply 14): Viruses can't fl -- wait you mean like airborne bacteria? C'mon, they aren't flying (just falling with style Wink ) -- and it just isn't voluntary. With a strong enough wind, we could all fly whether we want to or not, but that doesn't mean we're in control of the flight path.
Fair point. So we're talking lightest controlled flight then. I guess it would be some sort of insect.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
Quote: "Proposals for controlling insects using micro-electromechanical systems (MEMS) and turning them into micro air vehicle (MAV) sensor platforms have been requested by the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).
Insects would have MEMS inserted during their growth cycle, providing for production line-like integration with the creature's biological functions. 'During locomotion [the] insect thorax generates heat and mechanical power, which may be harnessed to power the microsystem payload,' says DARPA.
One goal is for a remote pilot to fly a cyborg insect to within 100m (300ft) of a target. Control could be maintained using pheromones or mechano-sensor activation and direct muscle or neural interfaces."