1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Aeroplanes

Discussion in 'General Technology Discussions' started by 0-markymark-0, 13 Mar 2014.

  1. Shaun

    Shaun Über Geek

    Gotta love the styling though:

    [​IMG]

    ... and being a bit sceptical I thought ... oh yeah, another one of those "designer" lead big-budget Kickstarter affairs, but no - it does fly:



    Although it looks like it's as long as a LWB Transit, so might feel more like a limo when taking corners around town ... and it doesn't exactly do the Chitty Chitty Bang Bang feat of turning into a plane as it's driving along. :happy:

    I suspect this one is destined to become a rich person's toy, although I wouldn't mind having a go in one ... :D
     
  2. It looks like it would not take much to dig the nose in when landing! I reckon that crosswinds acting on the front might be a problem too - the vehicle was swaying about a lot in the air.

    It's very clever but I can't help thinking that there are more pressing projects that talented engineers should be working on. There are billions of hungry/thirsty/homeless/diseased people who urgently need the right tech working for them. There are probably a few thousand wealthy people who might buy flying cars if they could!
     
  3. amusicsite

    amusicsite dn ʎɐʍ sᴉɥ┴ Staff Member

    Location:
    UK
    We already have the technology to help solve a lot of these problems. It's more down to greed and not giving people access to technology they need that's the real problem..

    I always find that a strange argument anyway, you never can tell what the offshoot benefits could be. For starters a flying car could be a great way to rescue people and deliver aid in a disaster area where most of the roads are unusable. Like the helicopter for instance. On one hand it's a military tool, a rich persons play thing, a hospital fast response or sea rescue craft. Would have been easy to call that a toy for rich people when that was being developed...
     
    0-markymark-0 likes this.
  4. amusicsite

    amusicsite dn ʎɐʍ sᴉɥ┴ Staff Member

    Location:
    UK
    [​IMG]

    We have come a long way since this though...
     
    Abdey, classic33, Shaun and 1 other person like this.
  5. True, though there are still big problems that could do with new solutions finding.

    I have never really come up with anything to help humanity, but once got a sniff of a job which I later suspected was to work on the control system for cruise missiles! (I don't know for sure because the people I was speaking to wouldn't discuss any details unless I would agree to security vetting and be prepared to sign the Official Secrets Act paperwork.) I was pretty sure that whatever it was would not be for saving lives, let's put it that way ... No thanks!

    But helicopters have already been developed, and do a much better job of rescuing people than that car would!

    That car is designed to be a rich kid's plaything and it will be a pure accident if anything useful comes out of it. I'm just saying that it would be better if the effort were put into designing something useful in the first place.
     
  6. amusicsite

    amusicsite dn ʎɐʍ sᴉɥ┴ Staff Member

    Location:
    UK
    http://www.helicopter-history.org/1907.html

    It's not like the helicopter was designed to do any of the things it's used for these days...

    For sure that flying car is probably not going to replace any helicopters for most jobs, but the advantage of using roads where there are some, with I presume a massive saving on fuel, then only using the flying ability when needed could trump a helicopter in certain tasks. Like most advances the first use will likely to be the rich but as the tech develops it gets cheaper and that's when people start finding out what else it can be used for.

    I don't see it as an either or argument either. There is plenty of resources to tackle the problems of the world and make play things for the rich. Because we, or more correctly our collective governments and industrial leaders, choose to make a multi billion dollar oil pipeline in Alaska rather than a water pipeline in Africa is a whole different story. Like I said before if modern sanitation, water treatment and medicine was available throughout the world then Billions would be better off already without wasting a penny on research. In fact if you follow your logic to the end then there should be no R&D and in fact we should just use that money to install the technology we already have in the places that need it.

    I think there is room for both research into pipe dreams and real practical solutions as you can never tell what may come out of either. It's quite often we learn something new from experimenting that ends up befitting another sector. I would agree that technology should be used to help the poor and disadvantaged where appropriate.
     
  7. sidevalve

    sidevalve Well-Known Geek

    Just a point for the above - Africa is not a desert country [ok bits of it are] and one of the main reasons people are dying is that the water is impure. This is not a big problem as a sand filter [cost = zero] will remove most of the problems and boiling would remove almost all the rest. In many cases the answer is in the peoples own hands, sorry but it's true.
    As for the flying car has anybody here never [and I mean never ever] run out of fuel ? Ok to roll to a stop by the roadside but in the air ?
     
  8. NEOoooo

    NEOoooo Guest

    AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
     
  9. amusicsite

    amusicsite dn ʎɐʍ sᴉɥ┴ Staff Member

    Location:
    UK
  10. Yellow Fang

    Yellow Fang Veteran Geek

    Location:
    Reading
    I suppose this is still physics, although fairly mundane...

    I was watching someone diss the idea of using hovercraft in Die Another Day as a way of getting over North Korean minefields. Well I was persuaded on that, but he also said there was down-force from helicopters. Remembering all those episodes of MASH and other TV programmes, helicopters did seem to blow a lot of air towards the ground. Yet I also read, while in the Air Training Corps, that helicopter rotor blades were aerofoils like aircraft wings. They worked because air moving across the curved, upper side of the aerofoil had to move faster than air moving across the lower, straight side. The faster moving air exerts less pressure than the slower moving air, which pulls the aerofoil upwards, along with the rest of the aircraft. So, what causes all that air to go downwards? I suppose there must be a lot of air pushed downwards because there is a lot of aircraft being pushed upwards. Does an aeroplane push a lot of air downwards when it is flying in a straight line? I am not 100% sure, but I think propellers are aerofoils too, not just screws, rather like wind turbines in reverse. Aeroplanes move forwards by pushing a lot of air backwards at speed, but if propellers work by lift force then I can't see what is pushing the air backwards.
     
  11. amusicsite

    amusicsite dn ʎɐʍ sᴉɥ┴ Staff Member

    Location:
    UK
    I'm no expert but I would have thought the pressure down from a hovercraft surely must be equal to the weight of the craft to lift it. So I would presume it's the weight of the craft divided by the surface area of the cushion of air (around the edge?).

    So as long as it's a light craft with big cushion then the distributed down force could be less than what is needed to trigger the mines. It would also depend on what type of mines they are and how much pressure is needed to set them off. I'd presume you don't want it too low as then the mines might go off by mistake. Also the pressure of a human stepping on something is quite high so I'd guess the amount of force needed to set them off is quite high too.
     
  12. Yellow Fang

    Yellow Fang Veteran Geek

    Location:
    Reading
    That's what the YouTube guy was saying, but I wondered what was the effect of a fixed wing aircraft. Do they generate downward force?
     
  13. amusicsite

    amusicsite dn ʎɐʍ sᴉɥ┴ Staff Member

    Location:
    UK
    I'd imagine that they must produce downforce but that force would be very small compared to the weight of the craft, whereas the hovercraft will need the same downforce as the whole weight of the craft.
     
  14. beanz

    beanz Staff Member Staff Member

    I've been an air passenger precisely twice in my life so I am coming at this from the point of view of interest, not expertise :)

    I always imagined it was a combination of two things. Doesn't the shape of the blade have the effect of pushing a large mass of air down - the downdraft effect - as well as also reducing the air pressure on the top surface of the blade to 'suck' the wing upwards? In the case of the downward force from the air mass, there would have to be an upward force to balance it. So don't both these effects create lift?
     
  15. amusicsite

    amusicsite dn ʎɐʍ sᴉɥ┴ Staff Member

    Location:
    UK
    [​IMG]

    I think the trick is the downward force is a bit more distributed as some of it goes down and back but yes the air pressure is increased under the plane. In Hollywood movies actors do seem to get blown over when a plane takes off overhead and we all know they are always scientificly accurate. I'm not sure home much of that is the wings and how much is the turberlance from the jet engines though.
     
    Yellow Fang likes this.
  16. amusicsite

    amusicsite dn ʎɐʍ sᴉɥ┴ Staff Member

    Location:
    UK
  17. classic33

    classic33 Über Geek

  18. classic33

    classic33 Über Geek

    But is it the angle of attack or the shape of the wing, that produces the lift?
     
  19. amusicsite

    amusicsite dn ʎɐʍ sᴉɥ┴ Staff Member

    Location:
    UK