1954 & 2015
Buzzcraft D
FLYING EGGBEATER
The first test flight of the Aerocycle was conducted by a combat-ready test pilot at the Brooklyn, NY, Army Terminal in 1955. (Photo courtesy of the U.S. Army Transportation Museum)
uring the mid-1950s (well before Army AL&T was first published), one of the major concepts in military avia- tion was the flying platform: an airborne vehicle designed to carry a standing, “combat-ready” Soldier to perform
reconnaissance missions. One of the first to tackle this notion was Charles H. Zimmerman of the National Advisory Committee for Aero- nautics (NACA). In 1954, he proposed that if the rotors of a helicopter were on the bottom, a pilot could use his own weight to steer the vehicle using kinesthetic control, similar to riding a bicycle. NACA found Zim- merman’s idea valid, and three companies developed prototypes. Te De Lackner Helicopter Co. of Mount Vernon, NY, developed one of them—the Aerocycle—for the Army.
After successful initial tethered and free-flight testing of the Aerocycle at the Brooklyn Army Terminal in 1955, the Army ordered 12 more variants and boldly predicted that the Aerocycle would be a modern version of the old horse cavalry, providing the “eyes and ears” for the infantry. However, after more testing in 1956 at Fort Eustis, VA, test pilot CPT Selmer Sundby concluded that the craft was much more dif- ficult to fly than previously predicted and that “it would not be safe” for an inexperienced pilot such as an infantryman to fly. Te low-mounted rotors kicked up rocks and debris, and the forward speed was limited by an “uncontrollable pitching motion.” Additionally, two crashes occurred when the rotors collided and shattered, triggering an “immediate loss of control,” and engineers were unable to find the reason for the malfunc- tion. As a result, the Army terminated the project—but not the concept.
Fast forward to 2015, when the U.S. Army Research Laboratory (ARL) at Adelphi, MD, has completed the feasibility study of using a similar vehicle, called the Hoverbike, as a tactical reconnaissance vehicle (TRV).
HOMEGROWN IDEA
Hoverbike inventor Chris Malloy on his original model outside his garage near Sydney, Australia, in 2011. Malloy said future Hoverbikes designed for private use will be classified as ultralight, meaning a pilot’s license will not be required. However, start saving your money: The price tag will probably be more than 45,000 pounds, or $70,680. (Photo courtesy of Malloy Aeronautics)
Bearing a striking resemblance to transporters from a “Star Wars” movie, the original Hoverbike was built in 2008 by New Zealand-born engineer Chris Malloy in his garage in suburban Sydney, Australia, in the evenings after work and on the weekends. What started as a hobby quickly grew into a commercial enterprise, with interest from universities, farmers, search and rescue companies, private entities and the military, including notable visits from the U.S. Army G-3/5/7 and Lockheed Martin Corp.’s Advanced Development Programs, known as the Skunk Works.
ASC.ARMY.MIL 203
THEN & NOW
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192 |
Page 193 |
Page 194 |
Page 195 |
Page 196 |
Page 197 |
Page 198 |
Page 199 |
Page 200 |
Page 201 |
Page 202 |
Page 203 |
Page 204 |
Page 205 |
Page 206 |
Page 207 |
Page 208
