Kitty Hawk reveals Heaviside, its latest flying vehicle

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

Marc Zeitlin

Exalted Grand Poobah
My complaint is about the cheesiness of the intermixing of footage of what appears to be a scale model. Go to the 3-second mark on the video and watch it again.
I am quite aware that you either previously or currently believe that there is footage of what appears to be a scale model and that you also previously or currently believe that CGI was used for the video. And as I clearly stated, you (and the others who postulated the same thing) are incorrect about both of those beliefs.

Are there pictures of that launchpad with a person or some known sized object for scale?
Sheesh. Yeah, the picture in post #9 is of a real human being (not a shrunken one from "Honey, I shrunk the kids") crouching next to the actual aircraft, on the actual takeoff/landing pad.

Those look like blades of grass, not full-sized bushes.
Whatever they may look like to you, and whatever they may actually BE, the airplane is full sized and capable of holding an actual, real size human being. Believe it - don't believe it - I don't give a FF. Just stop accusing people of lying to you or posting misleading videos, when they have done no such thing.

Again, I could be wrong, hence my original post asking, "Am I wrong?"
And I've clearly pointed out that you ARE wrong, yet you refuse to either believe it or admit it. There is no scale model in the video, and there is no CGI in the video. It is an edited video of a full scale aircraft flying and only a full scale aircraft flying. Could the statement be any clearer? What, exactly, could someone say to you to convince you that your original (and possibly current) view of what this video is is/was incorrect?

henryk

Well-Known Member
I am quite aware that you either previously or currently believe that there is footage of what appears to be a scale model and that you also previously or currently believe that CGI was used for the video. And as I clearly stated, you (and the others who postulated the same thing) are incorrect about both of those beliefs.

Sheesh. Yeah, the picture in post #9 is of a real human being (not a shrunken one from "Honey, I shrunk the kids") crouching next to the actual aircraft, on the actual takeoff/landing pad.

Whatever they may look like to you, and whatever they may actually BE, the airplane is full sized and capable of holding an actual, real size human being. Believe it - don't believe it - I don't give a FF. Just stop accusing people of lying to you or posting misleading videos, when they have done no such thing.

And I've clearly pointed out that you ARE wrong, yet you refuse to either believe it or admit it. There is no scale model in the video, and there is no CGI in the video. It is an edited video of a full scale aircraft flying and only a full scale aircraft flying. Could the statement be any clearer? What, exactly, could someone say to you to convince you that your original (and possibly current) view of what this video is is/was incorrect?
=allmost glider fuselage/wing +multipropeller drive promiss the highest energy
efficiancy (long distance cruise !)

-today all others (multi)constructions are much worthe !

Himat

Well-Known Member
It may be named after a deserving person but the public won't remember, that just the name.

Heaviside ?

Like calling a submarine the "Sinker" class

A tyre company "Slippery"

A lawyers firm " Grabbitt Robbitt and Runn"

The claims are just as funny. I will believe it when I see it flying to pick me up.
A tyre company "Slippery"
A lawyers firm " Grabbitt Robbitt and Runn" ROTFL

“Sinker” submarine class, yes appropriate. Submarines are to sink other shipping, a successful may be a real “Sinker”

Himat

Well-Known Member
I see, to not be taken as CGI and a model show the video have to be taken from to far way, with to little zoom by a shaky hand. And a little grainy as an old cheap video camera was used.

Here it looks like decent equipment have been used by people that can use it. It look like some of the take off is filmed from an UAV that itself move. Like seen on CGI or in a large movie production. But that do not make it unreal.

I have one question mark and that is the noise figure, or rather how have they been able to measure it. 38dB is down in the background noise level outside. I’ll check, but I would not expect a decent measurement at that level.

Marc Zeitlin

Exalted Grand Poobah
I have one question mark and that is the noise figure, or rather how have they been able to measure it. 38dB is down in the background noise level outside. I’ll check, but I would not expect a decent measurement at that level.
If your test area is far enough away from any civilization and air travel routes, there are times where it's very quiet and low levels can be measured.

Dan Thomas

Well-Known Member
I am 66 years old and there are other guys as old or older or nearly as old here, and we all, if we've been in aviation as long as I have, have read for decades about new, revolutionary designs that will change everything. We've been promised miracles for so long, yet we're still flying ordinary airplanes and helicopters. We've seen a lot of people plunk down big deposits for magic flying machines, only to see their money vanish when the company goes broke because it couldn't make the thing work.

In other words, too many inventors have cried wolf too often so that we are justifiably skeptical about any new machine, especially since there is so much obvious vaporware trying to convince us that we're watching a real, actual, viable flying machine that we should line up to buy. Maybe this one is the real thing, but until a lot of people see it perform at Oshkosh, every day for a few hours, you can't criticise the skeptics. We've been taken for fools too often.

henryk

Well-Known Member
If your test area is far enough away from any civilization and air travel routes, there are times where it's very quiet and low levels can be measured.
-many years ago (I was yung) in my absolute noisless room was flying small bat, very close to me...=ZERO noise from flapping wings !

-I know,this type of wings/thrusters in future will be classic, NO rotating propellers.

cheesefactory

Active Member
I am quite aware that you either previously or currently believe that there is footage of what appears to be a scale model and that you also previously or currently believe that CGI was used for the video. And as I clearly stated, you (and the others who postulated the same thing) are incorrect about both of those beliefs.

Whatever they may look like to you, and whatever they may actually BE, the airplane is full sized and capable of holding an actual, real size human being. Believe it - don't believe it - I don't give a FF. Just stop accusing people of lying to you or posting misleading videos, when they have done no such thing.

And I've clearly pointed out that you ARE wrong, yet you refuse to either believe it or admit it. There is no scale model in the video, and there is no CGI in the video. It is an edited video of a full scale aircraft flying and only a full scale aircraft flying. Could the statement be any clearer? What, exactly, could someone say to you to convince you that your original (and possibly current) view of what this video is is/was incorrect?
I have not accused anyone of lying. I am merely asking questions that are pretty reasonable, if anyone can get off the defensive horse and just pay attention. You don't have to do anything. I am not asking you personally for proof. If they (Kitty Hawk) released a statement saying that all of the flying footage is of the real aircraft, I wouldn't have any reason not to believe them. And no, I don't expect them to make a statement or care about what some guy on a forum thinks.

All I'm saying is that some of the footage just looks funny from recognition of how things move and behave. If you look up videos of their previous model the Cora, when it lands it is soft and smooth. When the Heaviside lands in the video, it plops down violently on its stick-figure landing gear reminiscent of toy-grade RC planes. Here's the video of their old model:

It lands around the 1:20 mark.

It is also important to note the difference between a scale model and a working prototype. A full scale model is still just that -- a model. The terms should not be confused or be used interchangeably.

Sheesh. Yeah, the picture in post #9 is of a real human being (not a shrunken one from "Honey, I shrunk the kids") crouching next to the actual aircraft, on the actual takeoff/landing pad.
Sheesh. Yeah, I have already commented about that. I will quote it again in case you missed it: "I have no doubt that the guy has more than enough money to make one fly, considering that he has spent >$100M on the past couple models and they all do fly. There is video of them flying. There is no doubt that they have a flying one of this one too. Is it entirely possible that there is some footage of the full sized thing flying in the video? Sure." Himat Well-Known Member I have not accused anyone of lying. I am merely asking questions that are pretty reasonable, if anyone can get off the defensive horse and just pay attention. You don't have to do anything. I am not asking you personally for proof. If they (Kitty Hawk) released a statement saying that all of the flying footage is of the real aircraft, I wouldn't have any reason not to believe them. And no, I don't expect them to make a statement or care about what some guy on a forum thinks. All I'm saying is that some of the footage just looks funny from recognition of how things move and behave. If you look up videos of their previous model the Cora, when it lands it is soft and smooth. When the Heaviside lands in the video, it plops down violently on its stick-figure landing gear reminiscent of toy-grade RC planes. Here's the video of their old model: It lands around the 1:20 mark. It is also important to note the difference between a scale model and a working prototype. A full scale model is still just that -- a model. The terms should not be confused or be used interchangeably. Sheesh. Yeah, I have already commented about that. I will quote it again in case you missed it: "I have no doubt that the guy has more than enough money to make one fly, considering that he has spent >$100M on the past couple models and they all do fly. There is video of them flying. There is no doubt that they have a flying one of this one too. Is it entirely possible that there is some footage of the full sized thing flying in the video? Sure."
I did watch the first video once more and the video in the post. I do not think there is any “funny” things with how things move and behave. I have seen other full size aircraft perform similar plop down landings, not only model airplanes.

As I said in post #44:
I see, to not be taken as CGI and a model show the video have to be taken from to far way, with to little zoom by a shaky hand. And a little grainy as an old cheap video camera was used.

Here it looks like decent equipment have been used by people that can use it. It look like some of the take off is filmed from an UAV that itself move. Like seen on CGI or in a large movie production. But that do not make it unreal.

Defining the difference between a full scale model and a working prototype is difficult. What is the criteria that differ the two?

Speedboat100

Well-Known Member
How many fold the batteries have to increase the output for Heaviside to be eligible ( and fly over urban areas ) for certification under FAA ?

BBerson

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joe, at EAA said the "pilot" needs a powered lift rating. Or some unspecified special authorization. Might be difficult to get a powered lift rating. Another company did get some special permit.
He said you have to build and then the FAA will talk. Not the best deal, in my opinion.

Speedboat100

Well-Known Member
Yes ok...and my name is not Shirley.

Andy_RR

Well-Known Member
Well apparently it has flown because it has also crashed. That's a disappointment. This stuff isn't so easy.

Voidhawk9

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Software errors outnumbering human factors in crashes these days?
Yeah, a software error is a human error, but a subcategory thereof.