This article is within the scope of the
Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of
open tasks and
task forces. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cycling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
cycling on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CyclingWikipedia:WikiProject CyclingTemplate:WikiProject Cyclingcycling articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the
project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
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
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)reply
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."
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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: [1] Perhaps whichever editor included this could clarify? Thanks. - thewolfchild01:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)reply
( 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)reply
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. - thewolfchild05:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)reply
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! - thewolfchild17:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)reply
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|
talk01:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)reply
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;
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. - thewolfchild17:54, 16 July 2013 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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. - thewolfchild20:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)reply
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
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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:
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.