Talk:AeroVelo Atlas

_

Are the dimensions correct ?

According to this post on Aviation Week, "Atlas has a rotor diameter of 66.2ft, a total span of 153.9ft" whiich would give rotors diameters of about 20.2 m, half of what's mentionned in the article. And it looks visually more realistic to me, but I'm not sure.

By the way it's surprizing to see no "official" data on AeroVelo's website

Goulu 08:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Just google "66.2 ft to m". PantherLeapord (talk) 09:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The rotor diameter is 66.2 ft and the total span is 190 ft. AvWeek is wrong. See reference 2: "Vertiflite, "Human Powered Helicopters Rise Higher"". AHS International. November-December, 2012. Retrieved July 12, 2013. This has a great table that compares the dimensions of all of the HPHs. If I had time, I would add all these to the HPH page! Vertiflite (talk) 04:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

We need better citations in a couple of ways.

1. I've deleted from the Igor I. Sikorsky Human Powered Helicopter Competition article the statement "The Atlas is the largest HPH ever flown, and the 2nd largest helicopter ever flown (after the Mil V-12)." <ref>"Vertiflite, "Human Powered Helicopters Rise Higher"". AHS International. November-December, 2012. Retrieved July 12, 2013. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)</ref> I wondered if in editing the citations drifted around but see the same cite was used in this edit which added the claim. The page at URL http://vtol.org/hph-news is a list of articles. Which one(s) are the specific articles that support the "largest" claim?
2. Exactly which metric is being measured to define "largest" or "second largest?" Note, the Mil V-12 article has the same problem in that it claimed it is the "largest helicopter ever built" but does not show how. The helicopter articles do not mention things like "wingspan" which is used to compare fixed wing aircraft. Helicopter articles do document the rotor diameter but neither the Mil V-12 nor Boeing CH-47 Chinook articles document the total width or length of the span covered by tip-to-tip of the rotors. The CH-47 article mentions "Disc area" though oddly, the area listed is 6m² less than the area calculated (526m²) if you translate directly the rotor diameter into the area nor does it seem to factor that the circles overlap. The "Disc area" is not mentioned for the Mil V-12 though it can be calculated and is 1924.2 m². I did not review Tandem rotors to see if other helicopters have a large rotor size that may make them among the "largest."

--Marc Kupper|talk 01:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Update on this - The same "second largest" claim was also made on Human powered helicopter#Atlas. I've deleted that pending better sourcing.--Marc Kupper|talk 02:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

This issue has not yet been resolved.

1. User:Vertiflite appears to be closely related to the source he espouses, vtol.org, which is quite a conflict of interest. Check http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Vertiflite&oldid=417651124
2. Per wp:rs "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources," despite User:Vertiflite's admonition to "PLEASE use primary sources."
3. There remains little agreement between the various sources:

• The supplied vtol.org Q&A pdf states "The overall dimension of the Atlas is 59 meters (190 feet)," but
• AeroVelo's own tech-info page states "Maximum Dimension: 49.4m (162ft)," amd
• Aviation Week, Vertical Magazine, and Aviation International News Online are all saying 154 feet, but each in their own words.

Which is it? -AndrewDressel (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• The root source of the 154 foot number might be in Sikorsky Aircraft Corp's Toronto, July 11, 2013 press release, which states "Atlas spans an incredible 46.9 metres (154 feet) rotor tip to rotor tip."
• And the root source of the 190 foot number might be in Sikorsky Aircraft Corp's Alexandria, VA., July 11, 2013 press release, which states "The Atlas is larger than any operational helicopter ever constructed, based on its overall width of 58 meters (190 feet)."

• Where the 154 or 190 numbers originally came from and why neither agree with the 162 number on AeroVelo's website remain a mystery. -AndrewDressel (talk) 18:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
• Perhaps one cause for the 154 and 190 numbers is in the coincidence that a 154 ft wide square with 33.5 ft radius rounded corners has a maximum diagonal dimension of 190 feet. Thus, the Toronto Sikorsky press office appears to have reported the maximum tip-to-tip dimension between adjacent rotors, and the Alexandria Sikorsky press office appears to have reported the maximum diagonal tip-to-tip dimension between rotors. Still no idea where 162 might fit in, and this is just talk page speculation about the discrepancy between sources. -AndrewDressel (talk) 19:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Here's one source, Dezeen Magazine, that provides both dimensions without further comment: "Atlas weighs only 55kg, but spans 50 metres (162 feet)" and "Atlas spans an incredible 46.9 metres (154 feet) rotor tip to rotor tip, while weighing only 55kg." -AndrewDressel (talk) 15:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, I contacted Meg Campbell, Communications & Marketing Director at AeroVelo, about the quandary, and her entire reply was "The correct dimension is 154 ft." And now, the AeroVelo Technical Information page also states "Maximum Dimension: 46.4m (154ft)". Apparently the 162 ft was a mistake that has now been corrected. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Clarification

I removed:

"...and the 2nd largest helicopter ever flown (after the Mil V-12)."

from the Operational History section, as this claim needs to be clarified. (A 120 lb. pedal-powered copter is second (in what?) only to a 214,000 lb., gas-turbine powered, heavy transport helicopter?) I also could not find anything about the Mil V-12 in the reference provided: Perhaps whichever editor included this could clarify? Thanks. - thewolfchild 01:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

( I believe the edit was made by User:Vertiflite, perhaps he can confirm this and if so, provide the clarification I requested. - Wolf )

It is 2nd in overall (maximum) dimension. The span of the two rotors of the Mi-12 are less than the span of the overall rotors of the Atlas. You can compare the overall span of the rotors of the Mi-12 to the 120 ft, which was in the Vertiflite reference. The Mi-12 is recognized as the largest helicopter ever built. The Mi-26 is recognized as the 2nd largest, and the largest operational helicopter ever. Mike.
Vertiflite (talk) 04:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Verti/Mike. Thanks for the prompt reply, but I'm still a little confused. If you are ranking these machines by overall span of the rotor(s), then which is the 'largest'?

- The first quote stated the Atlas was second to the Mil V-12.

- Your reply here states the overall span of the Mi-12 rotors are less than the overall span of the Atlas rotors.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be difficult. I think it's interesting to compare the characteristics of these two vastly different helicopters. If there's something that oddly distinguishes the oh-so-simple Atlas from the massive and complex Mi-12, then it would be worth mentioning in the article. I just want to get the info right. Thanks for you patience and insight. - thewolfchild 05:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. My second response was a typo -- V-12 overall rotorspan was larger than the Atlas. Vertiflite (talk) 13:06, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah, ok... so the Atlas' overall rotor span in second only to the Mi-12 in size? Well that makes it clearer. If you wish to re-submit that to the article, would you mind specifying that? Thanks again for your help! - thewolfchild 17:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Oops - I just added a question/comment about this very issue to the previous talk thread. Vertiflite, it's still not clear from this thread how you are measuring the helicopters. Also, I get the sense that you are inventing a new way of comparing devices and we'd be drifting into WP:OR here. --Marc Kupper|talk 01:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Marc, I disagree that something is "being invented" here or that wp:original research is being used. Now that I understand Verti is referring to rotor diameter/span, I think he needs to differentiate between rotor diameter vs. overall rotor area - where multiple rotors come into play. Here are some examples;

Helicopter	Number of Rotors	Diameter per Rotar	Overall Rotor Area
Atlas	4	66'3"	13800 sq. ft.
Mil V-12	2	114'10"	20700 sq. ft.
Mil Mi-10	1	114'10"	10350 sq. ft.
Mil Mi-26	1	105'0"	8659 sq. ft.
Hughes XH-17	1	129'11"	13273 sq. ft.
V-22 Osprey	2	38'0"	4536 sq. ft.

Now, These are all helicopters, so there is nothing wrong with comparing them. But before Verti puts adds any edits about the comparisons, he should clarify just what is being compared and support it with cites. In the end though, because of the vast differences between the Atlas and these other machines, it is worth noting some comparative differences, to help give the article perspective. - thewolfchild 17:54, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Making your own comparisons with other aircraft and then assigning this aircraft the title of "second biggest" or "second largest rotor area...etc" is strictly WP:OR. And the reason for that is that your inclusion of this or that other aircraft in the comparison may be incomplete or flawed. If you want the article to say this aircraft is the "second biggest..." or similar then you need to cite a ref that says that as per WP:V or not include this comparison. - Ahunt (talk) 00:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Ahunt, who was your post directed at? - thewolfchild 05:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

It was just a reminder of how we handle these sorts of comparisons on Wikipedia in general and within WikiProject Aircraft specifically, that we can't make our own comparisons, that we need to cite sources that compare, in this case the size of helicopters. - Ahunt (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Ahunt (et al), just to be clear... I am not adding anything to this article. This is why I asked you who your comment was directed at. I removed a comment that didn't make sense and that I also believe wasn't cited properly. The discussion of this sub-section is about trying to make sense of just what the editor (Vertiflite - who added the comment in question) was comparing. I simply made up this little table to that end alone, and for this talk page only. - thewolfchild 20:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

These may help:

• "With a maximum diagonal dimension of 154 feet (46.9 meters), Atlas is the second-largest helicopter ever built, coming in behind the Russian Mil V-12." - Vertical Magazine
• "The Atlas is the second-largest helicopter ever built–154 feet from rotor tip to tip–according to AeroVelo (the Mil V-12 is the largest)" - Aviation International News Online

-AndrewDressel (talk) 15:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Perfect - that is exactly what is needed! - Ahunt (talk) 16:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done -AndrewDressel (talk) 20:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks good! - Ahunt (talk) 20:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

References

Sikorsky Prize

It seems relevant to insert that the Sikorski Prize is for a whopping $250,000 (which I found by enlarging the picture of the presentation). Dick Kimball (talk) 12:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done - Ahunt (talk) 13:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Flying

Not to belittle the achievement of the AVA Team, but maybe it should be noted in some way that a helicopter which is actually "flying" is someting quite different aerodynamically than some contraption which is hovering close to the ground. --BjKa (talk) 11:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Considering that all five of the December 1903 flights of the Wright Flyer also attained "an altitude of about 10-feet" or less, which is only a quarter of its 40 ft wingspan, and well within the range for which ground effect may be expected, I think that what the Atlas has achieved may be considered just as much to be "flying". Mention of ground effect, however, would be just as appropriate in this article as would any other flight characteristic and as it would be in the Wright Flyer article.

Calling it a "contraption which is hovering close to the ground", on the other hand, seems to be very belittling indeed. First, it is hardly more of a contraption than the Wright Flyer or the international space station; second, as a helicopter, hovering is exactly what we expect from it; and third, it flew exactly as high as it was required to. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Closer reading of the AeroVelo website reveals that their design specifically took advantage of ground effect, so I've added that detail, with a reference. -AndrewDressel (talk) 01:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Pictures

The Picture "AeroVelo_Atlas_top_view.jpg" which is currently included in Human-powered helicopter gives a much better impression of AVA, while "AHS Sikorsky Prize Winning Flight by AeroVelo.jpg" which is used here actually shows the human effort. I believe both articles would benefit from the pictures being swapped. --BjKa (talk) 11:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the top view gives a much better impression of AVA. Since there is room for both here, I've simply added it. -AndrewDressel (talk) 12:59, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Good move! PantherLeapord (talk) 22:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on AeroVelo Atlas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130701223752/http://www.aerovelo.com/2013/06/22/snowbird-featured-in-honda-commercial/ to http://www.aerovelo.com/2013/06/22/snowbird-featured-in-honda-commercial/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130715054234/http://www.aerovelo.com/projects/helicopter/tech-info to http://www.aerovelo.com/projects/helicopter/tech-info/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130715005946/http://www.aerovelo.com/2013/07/11/aerovelo-officially-awarded-ahs-sikorsky-prize to http://www.aerovelo.com/2013/07/11/aerovelo-officially-awarded-ahs-sikorsky-prize/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:40, 27 June 2017 (UTC)