I am the grit in the gears, the missing bolt, I am the poker of sticks into spokes.
I like to know how things work, but sometimes when I take them apart and rebuild them, I have a few pieces left over.
I am a man, so I tend to leave reading the instructions until after it goes wrong.
And like all men I have a comprehensive mental map of the world and never need to ask directions.
I never get lost, only sometimes I'm late, or end up in the wrong place entirely.
It's what we do.
Friday, 8 January 2010
Flying Car, anybody?
These'll be available by 1965.
I wonder, if when we finally get working time-machines, we'll all be lining up to go bludgeon the lying snivelling creeps who produced Modern Mechanix, and other magazines of that ilk.
I still think that the vertical takeoff and landing flying aluminum rowboat concept that I mentioned in a previous post is not too far fetched (also, unlike the M400 skycar, it would be powered with something more energy dense than ethanol since water doesn't burn)....the wankel concept is still doable as I think was proved with the M200 footage. Aren't I correct?
....oh, after further review of the videos and more research, I think I see what's going on. The skycar only really technically hovers in about 8 inches ground effect, but the thruster can push the car forward and around as the crane raises it vertically. Those videos have such a little quality to them that it's hard to tell what's really going on in them as far as the blurry cable. Actually, the thrusters cause the car to desend at a slower rate than 1 g too which thereby makes the crane have the effect of a slack cable.
But still....look at the harrier vtol jumpjet though, besides that it might also be possible to rig a helicopter blade to an aluminum car chassis too.
I'm not so sure, QF, I think , though moller's videos are far from proof, that the machines can self-lift, but, as I've never found a reference that suggests they're ever going above fifteen feet, I'd suspect that they're sitting on a ground-effect cushion, and that they just don't have enough lift for free-flight. Also, the stability suggests they're sitting on a mushroom of lift and desperately trying to fall off it. Usually it's almost impossible to see the crane cable.
Harriers are notoriously tricky on the vertical lift, and require far more skill to truly vtol than to stol. Strange to think that the harrier's first prototype, the Hawker Siddely Kestrel made its first vertical take off in 1960.
Found a good article on the history of VTOLs while looking up that Hawker Siddely Kestrel...I had no idea there was such a long history going back to the mid 1940's of such aircraft.
The footage I was referring to was for the Moller M200...I think you can see the rope going slack upon descending and also upon ground effect, you can also see the rope at significant angles toward the end of that video which might just be pendulum swinging action provided by the thruster.
Hmmm, nothing precludes the attaching of a hot air balloon to an aluminum rowboat, or the attaching of foldable Goped spindle wheels to a rowboat thereof....I just got the feeling that it's all still doable and feasible you know.
I still think that the vertical takeoff and landing flying aluminum rowboat concept that I mentioned in a previous post is not too far fetched (also, unlike the M400 skycar, it would be powered with something more energy dense than ethanol since water doesn't burn)....the wankel concept is still doable as I think was proved with the M200 footage. Aren't I correct?
ReplyDelete....oh, after further review of the videos and more research, I think I see what's going on. The skycar only really technically hovers in about 8 inches ground effect, but the thruster can push the car forward and around as the crane raises it vertically. Those videos have such a little quality to them that it's hard to tell what's really going on in them as far as the blurry cable. Actually, the thrusters cause the car to desend at a slower rate than 1 g too which thereby makes the crane have the effect of a slack cable.
ReplyDeleteBut still....look at the harrier vtol jumpjet though, besides that it might also be possible to rig a helicopter blade to an aluminum car chassis too.
I'm not so sure, QF,
ReplyDeleteI think , though moller's videos are far from proof, that the machines can self-lift, but, as I've never found a reference that suggests they're ever going above fifteen feet, I'd suspect that they're sitting on a ground-effect cushion, and that they just don't have enough lift for free-flight. Also, the stability suggests they're sitting on a mushroom of lift and desperately trying to fall off it. Usually it's almost impossible to see the crane cable.
Harriers are notoriously tricky on the vertical lift, and require far more skill to truly vtol than to stol. Strange to think that the harrier's first prototype, the Hawker Siddely Kestrel made its first vertical take off in 1960.
Found a good article on the history of VTOLs while looking up that Hawker Siddely Kestrel...I had no idea there was such a long history going back to the mid 1940's of such aircraft.
ReplyDeleteThe footage I was referring to was for the Moller M200...I think you can see the rope going slack upon descending and also upon ground effect, you can also see the rope at significant angles toward the end of that video which might just be pendulum swinging action provided by the thruster.
Hmmm, nothing precludes the attaching of a hot air balloon to an aluminum rowboat, or the attaching of foldable Goped spindle wheels to a rowboat thereof....I just got the feeling that it's all still doable and feasible you know.
ReplyDelete