>True human-powered flight was already acheived back in 1984
How come we don't see more people making/flying human powered dirigibles?

>>2044125 (OP)
This is very obviously not 'human powered flight' as the blimp is not heavier than air. The human only powers the lateral movement aspect of an aircraft that floats all by itself.

>>2044125 (OP)
Look, your average plebs can't follow traffic laws on the road, how well do you think it would go if they had to deal with air traffic and all it entails?
The only thing worse than Joe and Stacy crashing their SUV in my street is Joe and Stacy crashing their AirSUV on my fucking roof.
Individual air transportation is never happening and that really is for the best.

>>2044139
From what I understand, the blimp just makes you buoyant in air, but it will not lift you more than a couple of feet off the ground. In order to ascend further in these the propeller is designed to be tilted towards the ground for additional lift. I think this makes it as close to human powered flight as you can get honestly. The issue with human powered flight using conventional aircraft isn't that humans can't provide enough power for lift but rather that humans can't provide sustained power for lift, and a loss of power with an airplane could be sketchy if there's no safe landing area or outright deadly if you don't have enough altitude to glide safely. The blimp simply eliminates these issues. A loss in power in that thing and you'll gently float to the ground no matter where you are.

In a simple chemical process, an average human can be turned into approximately 5 gallons of bio-fuel which is enough for about 60 miles of range in a small propeller airplane.
This is the only way human-powered flight is realistically possible.

Does this not count?

I recall one fellow was working on a arm-and-leg pedalled helicopter which was insane.

>>2044177
this is OK for doing laps over an airfield but for distance?
What happens if you get a cramp?

>>2044205
I guess you glide? Or maybe it just blows up idk

>>2044147
I do not disagree with anything you:'ve said here.
Your observations support my notion: It is considered a challenge for a reason. From my POV OP makes an attempt to declare the challenge to be 'won' long ago in a sense that would make it obsolete now. It is not. It is still a valid engineering challenge and only that. For obvious reasons there will never be a practical application of the exact requirements of the 'human powered flight'-challenge. Most centrally: There is no need for the whole thing. There is no need to adhere to the standards put forth by the challenge in a 'practical' scenario. And then all the technical limitations.
I find one point you made very interesting: When is a craft 'heavier than air' by definition? I imagine if the crafts own weight was almost completely but not entirely offset by a buoyancy mechanism it should count as a heavier than air craft. If on the other hand the buoancy was such that it goes beyond and also offsets some of the pilots weight (implying it offsets more than all of the crafts weight making the craft in isolation lighter than air) it is not heavier than air.
Either way: The buoancy meme is not a real solution either because it will always imply a certain volume of the craft, which implies frontal area, which very quickly negates any human power input in a real world (windy) scenario.

>>2044125 (OP)
Look up Alberto Santos-Dumont, before making these claims.

>>2044141
There's a lot more space in the air

>>2044237
Attention Brazillians
Your country is a shithole because, by your own standards, your entire country apparently peeked with this clown that the rest of the world has already moved on from. You can stop brining him up now and maybe find real inventors instead
Sincerely, the rest of the world

>>2044147 #
I do not disagree with anything you:'ve said here.
Your observations support my notion: It is considered a challenge for a reason. From my POV OP makes an attempt to declare the challenge to be 'won' long ago in a sense that would make it obsolete now. It is not. It is still a valid engineering challenge and only that. For obvious reasons there will never be a practical application of the exact requirements of the 'human powered flight'-challenge. Most centrally: There is no need for the whole thing. There is no need to adhere to the standards put forth by the challenge in a 'practical' scenario. And then all the technical limitations.
I find one point you made very interesting: When is a craft 'heavier than air' by definition? I imagine if the crafts own weight was almost completely but not entirely offset by a buoyancy mechanism it should count as a heavier than air craft. If on the other hand the buoancy was such that it goes beyond and also offsets some of the pilots weight (implying it offsets more than all of the crafts weight making the craft in isolation lighter than air) it is not heavier than air.
Either way: The buoancy meme is not a real solution either because it will always imply a certain volume of the craft, which implies frontal area, which very quickly negates any human power input in a real world (windy) scenario.

>>2044229
You don't get high enough to glide for more than a few meters. All the distance records were done over water, with a boat full of divers on stand-by following the plane. The distance record is less than what an untrained cyclist can do in a day if they are willing to suffer a bit. And all the record-breaking aircraft crashed instead of landing.

>>2044246
this. Olympic track cyclist Robert Forsterman has freakish 74cm thighs and they hooked his bike up to a (presumably very efficient) dynamo and it took all his strength to toast bread in a standard toaster. not burnt, even; just brown. he was visibly exhausted.
human power on wheels is extremely efficient. human power in the air is underpowered and the limits are already well understood (they suck.)

>>2044177
A beer company sponsored their endeavors?

>>2044244
>For obvious reasons there will never be a practical application of the exact requirements of the 'human powered flight'-challenge.
The ability for humans to be able to fly on their own has been a dream since the dawn of mankind itself, so obviously there is some interest in wanting to build something that cal allow humans to fly off of just their own power alone.

>>2044297
I repeat:
>exact requirements of the 'human powered flight'-challenge
emphasis on exact.
It's an engineering challenge. There is so many more accessible way to make humans fly. Like paraparagliding, sailplanes, pighter than air vehicles or motorgliding and simply airplanes if we ditch the HPV aspect entirely.