+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 48
Like Tree11Likes

Thread: Roadable Airplane/Quadcopter/amphibian all in one

  1. #31
    Registered User BBerson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Port Townsend WA
    Posts
    4,683

    Re: Roadable Airplane/Quadcopter/amphibian all in one

    Quote Originally Posted by Aircar View Post
    just tripped over this -another quadrotor conversion (model) --uses a separate thrust engine and prop --the lift props just feather in forward flight
    YouTube --if we could only shrink ourselves down a few times all would be solved.
    That is the future Aircar!I am just waiting for the cost of electric to go down some.

  2. #32
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Melbourne Australia
    Posts
    3,605

    Re: Roadable Airplane/Quadcopter/amphibian all in one

    I agree about the having fun bit Bruce (didn't bring my headphones so will have to listen to it later on ) --how they flew RC at night beats me and the air to air was also something I hadn't seen before. The configuration is like one Dornier published in the 1960s (Do400 comes to mind but probably not right) -it also had the outer wing tilting but not the inner (to reduce the downwash penalty and to give yaw control in hover from the ailerons )

    There are a legion of intermediate configurations that combine all sorts of features and some might even work on a number of levels but so far none has ticked enough boxes to get to the starting line (noise and failsafety are the two unseen but primary hurdles --anything with widely separated thrust producers has to have intershafting to keep thrust symmetry or have such a huge surplus to be able to make up for the loss of one (just about impossible at full scale)

    With the small prop diameter at this scale the amount of unaffected wing is somewhat greater than for full size and power (the old square cube law at it again..) but they realize this and tilt a section of wing together with the prop (rear wing) to alleviate the effect --and tilt the front wing outers as well . They may even have used the Do400 (sic) for inspiration --there have been some RC models with wing 'embedded' gimballing props and electric motors -- This is even a sub class of VTOL on this type --it sure messes up the wing structure and makes for some weird and hard to manufacture shapes , some use just fixed lift fans IN the wing -to avoid the downwash effect. (the Vanguard Omniplane for one and the Ryan Vertijet XV5 --they get some ADDED lift from the intake air entering the ducts even.

    The amalgamation of VTOL (not being helicopter or jump gyro type)together with a practicable ground vehicle has not been successfully shown despite a number of attempts (including the THREE rotor Barker Skycar --ca 1990 at Arlington,Wa - I was his first visitor by chance) the quadrotor concept is very old in fact and at least a dozen prototypes were built in the 60s for the US Army 'flying jeep' program and the UK "project Prodigal" --these were full scale man carrying but certainly didn't conform to 'roadable' dimensions and other constraints like noise or expense --the recent model revival using electric motors is just that - a revival.

    I'll need to re read your post Kingfisher (a PM popped up and I have to do it before able to do a reply..) --I am not offended and probably overeacted --my reference to "Fermat's last theorem' was trying to convey the difficulty of the actual task of getting a VIABLE flying car [I]system[I as compared to just one or two of a long list of essential attributes that will define a solution. Even if the thing proposed can 'float like a butterfly and sting like a bee' it STILL has to be produceable at an economic price -- the use of large amounts of carbon fibre and intricate hand labour to build something condemns the result to a Rolls Royce level market (and price) which is not,to me, the object . (one Detroit executive said of carbon fibre "it would still be too expensive if they GAVE it away" -meaning that there is no practical or affordable method of manufacture using it . the entire Australian car industry is now shutting down NOT because the cars don't work or aren't as good as any others but simplt because they CANNOT be made as CHEAPLY -- that is the bottom line, literally ; 'gold plating' some kind of exotic VTOL device that MIGHT be able to function ,using turbine engines almost certainly, and manage to go down the road after a fashion is not opening a new market of any worth, even if somehow technically interesting. (Paul Moller has flogged his 'answer' for nigh on 40years and totally changed the basic concept AFTER the local president of the institute of engineers at the time (2001) Dr Martin Cole, wrote and editorial extolling how great Moller's device was and urged the institute and Australia's government to get behind it --'the car of the future' (I can give you the date of the Institute journal if you like) I contacted Dr Cole and invited him to my humble abode to see how it could really be done and eventually saw him and in the course of that showed him the NACA and Interavia papers that proved that you could NOT hover with deflector plates which was Moller's basic concept . ALL his pictures show FIXED ducts up to this point . Moller merely copied Alexander Lippisch's "Aerodyne" technology but failed to notice that such things needed to adopt a 45 degree nose up attitude in order to hover at all --subsequently Cole conveyed this to Moller and --lo and behold- suddenly his ducts now ROTATE ...... and still doesn't do more than barely hover without any payload . The 'ducted fan on end of wing' configuration is there on the wheel of misfortune and exists basically to avoid the downwash on wing penalty by wrapping the wing around the propeller --Doak, Bell X22 (not Xv22 note) and several others, Dornier UAV etc all tried this approach but it is INHERENTLY unsuited to 'folding ' or otherwise converting to a road vehicle --Moller's crude attempts to make it even LOOK suitable are riscible. So, if Airport to airport (CTOL -conventional Take Off/Land) is a no go and VTOL is also (saving a lot more justification for that statement ) what is left ? That is where I hoped to at least get the case for a simple infrastructure to permit ATOL on the agenda (and the "amphibian..all in one' of this thread doesn't even start to address issues of water operation --spray patterns and stability on water etc etc --the OPAL was designed to be amphibious not just to go fast -- a combination of features is a very difficult thing to achieve because the constraints and mutual impossibilities multiply and rule out single issue answers --THAT is what makes a real flying car a "Fermat's last theorem" type of problem.
    Holden likes this.

  3. #33
    Registered User BBerson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Port Townsend WA
    Posts
    4,683

    Re: Roadable Airplane/Quadcopter/amphibian all in one

    Is this the Barker Skycar?
    Image is from a FAA document about certification.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Roadable Airplane/Quadcopter/amphibian all in one-image.jpg  

  4. #34
    Registered User Kingfisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia /Australia
    Posts
    154

    Re: Roadable Airplane/Quadcopter/amphibian all in one

    Quote Originally Posted by Aircar View Post
    I agree about the having fun bit Bruce (didn't bring my headphones so will have to listen to it later on ) --how they flew RC at night beats me and the air to air was also something I hadn't seen before. The configuration is like one Dornier published in the 1960s (Do400 comes to mind but probably not right) -it also had the outer wing tilting but not the inner (to reduce the downwash penalty and to give yaw control in hover from the ailerons )

    There are a legion of intermediate configurations that combine all sorts of features and some might even work on a number of levels but so far none has ticked enough boxes to get to the starting line (noise and failsafety are the two unseen but primary hurdles --anything with widely separated thrust producers has to have intershafting to keep thrust symmetry or have such a huge surplus to be able to make up for the loss of one (just about impossible at full scale)

    With the small prop diameter at this scale the amount of unaffected wing is somewhat greater than for full size and power (the old square cube law at it again..) but they realize this and tilt a section of wing together with the prop (rear wing) to alleviate the effect --and tilt the front wing outers as well . They may even have used the Do400 (sic) for inspiration --there have been some RC models with wing 'embedded' gimballing props and electric motors -- This is even a sub class of VTOL on this type --it sure messes up the wing structure and makes for some weird and hard to manufacture shapes , some use just fixed lift fans IN the wing -to avoid the downwash effect. (the Vanguard Omniplane for one and the Ryan Vertijet XV5 --they get some ADDED lift from the intake air entering the ducts even.

    The amalgamation of VTOL (not being helicopter or jump gyro type)together with a practicable ground vehicle has not been successfully shown despite a number of attempts (including the THREE rotor Barker Skycar --ca 1990 at Arlington,Wa - I was his first visitor by chance) the quadrotor concept is very old in fact and at least a dozen prototypes were built in the 60s for the US Army 'flying jeep' program and the UK "project Prodigal" --these were full scale man carrying but certainly didn't conform to 'roadable' dimensions and other constraints like noise or expense --the recent model revival using electric motors is just that - a revival.

    I'll need to re read your post Kingfisher (a PM popped up and I have to do it before able to do a reply..) --I am not offended and probably overeacted --my reference to "Fermat's last theorem' was trying to convey the difficulty of the actual task of getting a VIABLE flying car [I]system[I as compared to just one or two of a long list of essential attributes that will define a solution. Even if the thing proposed can 'float like a butterfly and sting like a bee' it STILL has to be produceable at an economic price -- the use of large amounts of carbon fibre and intricate hand labour to build something condemns the result to a Rolls Royce level market (and price) which is not,to me, the object . (one Detroit executive said of carbon fibre "it would still be too expensive if they GAVE it away" -meaning that there is no practical or affordable method of manufacture using it . the entire Australian car industry is now shutting down NOT because the cars don't work or aren't as good as any others but simplt because they CANNOT be made as CHEAPLY -- that is the bottom line, literally ; 'gold plating' some kind of exotic VTOL device that MIGHT be able to function ,using turbine engines almost certainly, and manage to go down the road after a fashion is not opening a new market of any worth, even if somehow technically interesting. (Paul Moller has flogged his 'answer' for nigh on 40years and totally changed the basic concept AFTER the local president of the institute of engineers at the time (2001) Dr Martin Cole, wrote and editorial extolling how great Moller's device was and urged the institute and Australia's government to get behind it --'the car of the future' (I can give you the date of the Institute journal if you like) I contacted Dr Cole and invited him to my humble abode to see how it could really be done and eventually saw him and in the course of that showed him the NACA and Interavia papers that proved that you could NOT hover with deflector plates which was Moller's basic concept . ALL his pictures show FIXED ducts up to this point . Moller merely copied Alexander Lippisch's "Aerodyne" technology but failed to notice that such things needed to adopt a 45 degree nose up attitude in order to hover at all --subsequently Cole conveyed this to Moller and --lo and behold- suddenly his ducts now ROTATE ...... and still doesn't do more than barely hover without any payload . The 'ducted fan on end of wing' configuration is there on the wheel of misfortune and exists basically to avoid the downwash on wing penalty by wrapping the wing around the propeller --Doak, Bell X22 (not Xv22 note) and several others, Dornier UAV etc all tried this approach but it is INHERENTLY unsuited to 'folding ' or otherwise converting to a road vehicle --Moller's crude attempts to make it even LOOK suitable are riscible. So, if Airport to airport (CTOL -conventional Take Off/Land) is a no go and VTOL is also (saving a lot more justification for that statement ) what is left ? That is where I hoped to at least get the case for a simple infrastructure to permit ATOL on the agenda (and the "amphibian..all in one' of this thread doesn't even start to address issues of water operation --spray patterns and stability on water etc etc --the OPAL was designed to be amphibious not just to go fast -- a combination of features is a very difficult thing to achieve because the constraints and mutual impossibilities multiply and rule out single issue answers --THAT is what makes a real flying car a "Fermat's last theorem" type of problem.
    Indeed it would be nice if you at least read my post before tearing me apart. Anyway, you shall be forgiven.
    Here two scenarios:
    1.In the USA Midwest, almost any small town has an airport. There often is a courtesy car that pilots can use for free or very little money. However, you still often get stuck at the Airport anyway. I always took my inline-skates with me. Having an aircraft like Terrafugia which lands at the airport and can drive into town would be a great convenience there and perfectly adequate =>No need for VTOL.
    2. Flying to and from work everyday in a big city. You’d park on your own roof in the suburbs and charge up your batteries at night. You take off and land on a designated heli-, excuse me, landing pad in the industrial area where you work, even on a city roof top. You then drive into a parking garage, so other people can land=>VTOL essential

    Therefore, we can see it is dependent on the scenario whether something is “gold plating” or “essential”.
    So reviving something that may have previously failed is not a bad thing when new technologies are emerging. RC helicopters used to be so hard to fly that no one but the best pilots could handle them. Nowadays with the piezo gyros and speed governors, almost anyone can fly them.

    Your analogy to the decline of the car industry I don’t agree with. Yes, the manufacturing costs are too expensive in western countries, but it’s because of labour cost, not the cost of technology or materials used. We all want/need too much money to maintain our high standard of living. Even with my engineer’s salary, but with a family to sustain, I cannot save much money at all because of high prices, rent, utility bills. It’s sort of a vicious cycle. New technologies and materials will eventually be successful and are a way to break that cycle. In fact, being innovative is probably the only card we have left.

    Regarding Amphibious Take-off and Landing, maybe read my patent (somewhere in the post “An unorthodox seaplane hull, model tests” started by Himat). I just wrote it just so no one can later say “You cannot build this configuration!” Innovation patent in Australia is actually quite cheap, $100 per year, but does not even get examined. Anyway, the modern way of sharing information with everybody is better than hiding away and trying to make the most profit of ones idea. In the end I don’t care if some else pursues the same idea, as long as they don’t tell me I can’t work on it. It probably is much better to pool resources with that like-minded person than to expend your energy going through lawsuits.

    Tri-copter is possible, by the way, but at least one rotor has to be able to tilt, so it can produce a horizontal component of thrust to compensate for the unbalanced torque of 3 rotors. Obviously a small penalty in efficiency compared to 4 rotors, but not big enough to not build it, see
    Flite Test - Tricopter vs Quadcopter - Viewer Response - YouTube

    By the way, flying RC at night is quite easy and great fun. My Tercel glider only has one light at each wingtip, and I can even do aerobatics in more or less complete darkness like that.
    What goes up, must come down (at least within the limits of a finite world)

  5. #35
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Melbourne Australia
    Posts
    3,605

    Re: Roadable Airplane/Quadcopter/amphibian all in one

    BB- yes that is it --he seemed like a huckster to me and put out a few newsletters with 'progress reports' much like the Samson Skycycle is doing now . I had to get back to LA to catch a flight home so missed a seminar with him,Molt Taylor and Ed Sweeney at the museum of flight only a few days after I was there --Molt was contemptuous of the whole thing and his business ethics . I was actually looking for a toilet first thing in the morning after sleeping in my hire car overnight and he didn't even have a sign over the door then but the bathroom would have suited Liberace --thick white pile carpet and gold plated fittings .... I think it was sold on ebay not so long ago but have no idea what transpired in the 20 odd years in between (it could not transition of course and had to drag the ducts edge on in forward flight --even with a 450 HP Allison C 250 on board I think that the cruise speed was said to be 85 MPH --I have the old brochures and articles on file just not handy.

  6. #36
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Melbourne Australia
    Posts
    3,605

    Re: Roadable Airplane/Quadcopter/amphibian all in one

    KF- the library is just closing so I will save my reply for next time --BTW I prefer being 'unforgiven"

  7. #37
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Melbourne Australia
    Posts
    3,605

    Re: Roadable Airplane/Quadcopter/amphibian all in one

    I was wrong about the "Dornier" four poster VTOL it was a VFW design - VC 400 --the configuration was right though. www.aviastar.org has pix.

  8. #38
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Melbourne Australia
    Posts
    3,605

    Re: Roadable Airplane/Quadcopter/amphibian all in one

    Just listened to the soundtrack on the four prop VTOL model video -- sure is loud (only had 1/3 full volume) but fun --as I recalled they didn't have any lights on their model and seemed to lose control in the end (when not illuminated from below or silhouetted against the sky)

    KF - I just watched your "Tricopter vs quad" video --makes sense, but the Barker "Sky commuter" was all fixed fans -- he had vanes in the downwash I think for control and balanced the relative lifts and torques buy having more area on the front single one AFAIK .

    Your #1 --I would be surprised if one town in fifty had an airport in the Midwest -and I have flown a bit over that area (lived on Williams County airport actually) -there are a LOT of small towns in the US and you cannot land in corn fields --it is not grazing country and gets snowed in for up to half the year so even outlandings in gliders need care (fallow fields are the safest bet )

    #2- The cost of a full size VTOL aircraft will be enormous and likely need turbine power (you don't get electric motor overpowering at such a scale) ATOL is the low cost low, power, low noise, low skill and high safety, high reliability etc alternative --just as making trains with tanktracks (caterpillar tracks) COULD have obviated the need for thousands of miles of steel rails and wooden sleepers (ties in the US) and given 'all terrain' mobility without them ,in practice it proved to be better to take the complication out of each vehicle and use a form of infrastructure to make it possible to still go coast to coast over all sorts of terrain . Hovering is not part of any transportation function and vastly complicates the overall design of a vehicle and power needed but is just about needed in any type of VTOL even if just when a landing is aborted . Much easier to use a simple infrastructure and take the power weight and cost out of each vehicle.

  9. #39
    Registered User Kingfisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia /Australia
    Posts
    154

    Re: Roadable Airplane/Quadcopter/amphibian all in one

    Quote Originally Posted by Aircar View Post
    Just listened to the soundtrack on the four prop VTOL model video -- sure is loud (only had 1/3 full volume) but fun --as I recalled they didn't have any lights on their model and seemed to lose control in the end (when not illuminated from below or silhouetted against the sky)

    KF - I just watched your "Tricopter vs quad" video --makes sense, but the Barker "Sky commuter" was all fixed fans -- he had vanes in the downwash I think for control and balanced the relative lifts and torques buy having more area on the front single one AFAIK .

    Your #1 --I would be surprised if one town in fifty had an airport in the Midwest -and I have flown a bit over that area (lived on Williams County airport actually) -there are a LOT of small towns in the US and you cannot land in corn fields --it is not grazing country and gets snowed in for up to half the year so even outlandings in gliders need care (fallow fields are the safest bet )

    #2- The cost of a full size VTOL aircraft will be enormous and likely need turbine power (you don't get electric motor overpowering at such a scale) ATOL is the low cost low, power, low noise, low skill and high safety, high reliability etc alternative --just as making trains with tanktracks (caterpillar tracks) COULD have obviated the need for thousands of miles of steel rails and wooden sleepers (ties in the US) and given 'all terrain' mobility without them ,in practice it proved to be better to take the complication out of each vehicle and use a form of infrastructure to make it possible to still go coast to coast over all sorts of terrain . Hovering is not part of any transportation function and vastly complicates the overall design of a vehicle and power needed but is just about needed in any type of VTOL even if just when a landing is aborted . Much easier to use a simple infrastructure and take the power weight and cost out of each vehicle.
    Aircar,
    Thanks for the VC400 link. I had not been aware of that one either. It truly is great to have people on the forum with such a comprehensive knowledge of aviation history.
    Regarding tri-rotor with vanes, I’m sure that’s possible, this boils down to technical detail.

    It is interesting that a lot of these promising looking VTOL ideas where abandoned, probably due to the good reasons we both have addressed. If the infrastructure is indeed in place to land a simple conventional airplane near to where you may want to go, why go VTOL? (Scenario #1, air ports “everywhere”). But driving to and from an airport in a “flying car” would still be convenient and therefore add value. Maybe airports would stop being these abandoned looking places they often are nowadays. Here in Perth however, this would make no sense. It takes me 40 minutes to drive to work, which is near the airport. So I would only be excited about scenario #2.

    However, scenario#2 (everyone flying to work from home) is not a realistic option with current means of propulsion, and therefore your arguments regarding complexity and cost are all valid. There are more than just the technical issues, as many people on the forum have addressed (navigation, collision avoidance, road safety, etc.).

    However, contrary to you, I do think that short VTOL electric flights (~60-100km) may be possible, and the modern GPS navigation should enable us to establish air corridors based on assigning waypoints and altitudes that these commuter craft could be programmed to follow, just like UAVs already can. I’m not sure if there is a market for a “flying personal commuter”, but the technical aspect of it certainly is intriguing.

    I’m still not really clear on what you are actually advocating regarding the subject. Are you for or against a “flying car”? What is your point regarding amphibious take-off and landing? Obviously you seem to think this is a better solution? I love the idea of an amphibious airplane, hence I designed one. However, water is not everywhere, so ATOL surely does not add as much value as VTOL would?

    Like Dan Thomas stated on one of the other posts regarding this subject, a simple mechanism that defies gravity would immediately render all other transportation obsolete. If you like Starwars, then you’d agree the scenarios depicted there are quite conceivable if such a mechanism existed. I’m afraid, though, this would be somehow linked to time travel and going faster than light, and this is where my powers of imagination end.
    What goes up, must come down (at least within the limits of a finite world)

  10. #40
    Registered User Dan Thomas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,086

    Re: Roadable Airplane/Quadcopter/amphibian all in one

    Quote Originally Posted by Kingfisher View Post

    Like Dan Thomas stated on one of the other posts regarding this subject, a simple mechanism that defies gravity would immediately render all other transportation obsolete. If you like Starwars, then you’d agree the scenarios depicted there are quite conceivable if such a mechanism existed. I’m afraid, though, this would be somehow linked to time travel and going faster than light, and this is where my powers of imagination end.
    Ten or 15 years ago scientists fooling with some stuff found that a superconducting disc spinning at high speed reduced the pull of gravity by about 4% above the disc. There was no explanation of why this worked. For decades researchers have been trying to unite the four known forces--gravity, electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear forces--into a single all-encompassing theory (they used to call it GUT, or Grand Unified Theory; I think its Unified Field Theory now) but no luck yet.

    It's not Star Wars stuff anymore. There are signs that success might be achieved someday. But who knows when? If someone had told me back in high school that in 45 years I'd be sitting here and doing the stuff computers let me do, I'd have thought them crazy. Even more so, if they told me I could carry in my pocket a tiny thing that can take color pictures and send them instantly to friends most places in the world. Or tell me where I am on the earth's surface and draw me a map of which way to go.

    Dan

  11. #41
    Registered User Kingfisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia /Australia
    Posts
    154

    Re: Roadable Airplane/Quadcopter/amphibian all in one

    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Thomas View Post
    Ten or 15 years ago scientists fooling with some stuff found that a superconducting disc spinning at high speed reduced the pull of gravity by about 4% above the disc. There was no explanation of why this worked. For decades researchers have been trying to unite the four known forces--gravity, electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear forces--into a single all-encompassing theory (they used to call it GUT, or Grand Unified Theory; I think its Unified Field Theory now) but no luck yet.

    It's not Star Wars stuff anymore. There are signs that success might be achieved someday. But who knows when? If someone had told me back in high school that in 45 years I'd be sitting here and doing the stuff computers let me do, I'd have thought them crazy. Even more so, if they told me I could carry in my pocket a tiny thing that can take color pictures and send them instantly to friends most places in the world. Or tell me where I am on the earth's surface and draw me a map of which way to go.

    Dan
    Totally agree. I'm quite sure that most things we can imagine will become reality. Flying to other planets strapped to a rocket seems almost as ridiculous as Jules Verne's idea of shooting someone to the moon. Surely there is a better way of doing this. And people seem to be working on it.

    Also liked your statement about being content is something one has to find within oneself. I'm still working on that one
    What goes up, must come down (at least within the limits of a finite world)

  12. #42
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Melbourne Australia
    Posts
    3,605

    Re: Roadable Airplane/Quadcopter/amphibian all in one

    KF- best to take a look at some of the many previous threads were I have endeavoured to outline and explain ATOL (which is an entire CATEGORY just as VTOL is --asking someone to detail to you 'what a VTOL airplane looks like" would involve going through literally hundreds of different (but similar in at least one respect -mode of operation - ) designs using wildly varying means . Asking me 'am I for or against flying cars' is like asking the Pope if he is Catholic ... --I am FOR, but only when the MEANS is rational and obeys common sense and physics . I know it is difficult for someone who is in the position of a person coming very late into a lecture, for example, to pick up what is being said after missing the start --and it is impossible to revisit the topic for every new 'attendee' or whatever the right term is .
    And the 'heckler' problem is another that has caused me to give up hope on this subject --if you are trying to introduce and explain a new topic and do it in a logical step by step fashion building on each point when someone says, for example, after you have gotten to "since F=Ma ..." then "NO IT DON'T ! comes out of the audience (HBA viewers) and the whole flow and progress is sidetracked and sometimes never regained . Trying to answer one spurious objection like this can derail the entire explanation --and when it persists without let up there has to come a time when you just stop trying ( I tried a bit of humour using the Monty Python sketch 'the black knight' at one point but that didn't work either. I don't know what will work now but in the meantime I have to put time into the real world disaster unfolding in our (Australian )manufacturing base --if you can catch up on the 'required reading' maybe we can take it further.

  13. #43
    Registered User Kingfisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia /Australia
    Posts
    154

    Re: Roadable Airplane/Quadcopter/amphibian all in one

    Quote Originally Posted by Aircar View Post
    KF- best to take a look at some of the many previous threads were I have endeavoured to outline and explain ATOL (which is an entire CATEGORY just as VTOL is --asking someone to detail to you 'what a VTOL airplane looks like" would involve going through literally hundreds of different (but similar in at least one respect -mode of operation - ) designs using wildly varying means . Asking me 'am I for or against flying cars' is like asking the Pope if he is Catholic ... --I am FOR, but only when the MEANS is rational and obeys common sense and physics . I know it is difficult for someone who is in the position of a person coming very late into a lecture, for example, to pick up what is being said after missing the start --and it is impossible to revisit the topic for every new 'attendee' or whatever the right term is .
    And the 'heckler' problem is another that has caused me to give up hope on this subject --if you are trying to introduce and explain a new topic and do it in a logical step by step fashion building on each point when someone says, for example, after you have gotten to "since F=Ma ..." then "NO IT DON'T ! comes out of the audience (HBA viewers) and the whole flow and progress is sidetracked and sometimes never regained . Trying to answer one spurious objection like this can derail the entire explanation --and when it persists without let up there has to come a time when you just stop trying ( I tried a bit of humour using the Monty Python sketch 'the black knight' at one point but that didn't work either. I don't know what will work now but in the meantime I have to put time into the real world disaster unfolding in our (Australian )manufacturing base --if you can catch up on the 'required reading' maybe we can take it further.
    Well, I have the choice to go and fly my S-Bach now or go and read through 100+ pages of posts to filter out what your vision is, which is only one vision out of many.
    I think you ought to be able to outline in a few sentences how you envision this whole subject. For example, just answering to the scenarios I laid out would be fruitful. Instead you choose to lecture me on how many airports there “really” are in the Midwest.
    Your posts are actually quite offensive. I was trying to keep it constructive by adding scenarios and possible arguments for one or the other, but you don’t respond to any, instead I only get lecturing.
    The paradox is that first you point out my idea is complete rubbish and basically call me a total idiot, and then you find historic examples how this same concept has been done successfully before. It is actually upsetting and I spend way too much time on the computer, instead of doing something constructive.

    So have fun and solve the "decline of Australian manufacturing" (you haven't even managed to respond to my view of that)
    BBerson likes this.
    What goes up, must come down (at least within the limits of a finite world)

  14. #44
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Melbourne Australia
    Posts
    3,605

    Re: Roadable Airplane/Quadcopter/amphibian all in one

    I just lost a huge post --I am sick of wasting time on going over the same ground time and time again and the wasted effort every time, so will not.

  15. #45
    Registered User Kingfisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia /Australia
    Posts
    154

    Re: Roadable Airplane/Quadcopter/amphibian all in one

    Quote Originally Posted by Aircar View Post
    I just lost a huge post --I am sick of wasting time on going over the same ground time and time again and the wasted effort every time, so will not.
    Please don't bother. I agree, if you have outlined your vision somewhere before then you should not have to repeat yourself. I'll make an effort to find out. However, it really would be nice not to have this lecturing undertone in everything you say, it's really off-putting. Instead please just point me to where you have written it, that would be nice.
    What goes up, must come down (at least within the limits of a finite world)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Why not roadable aircraft
    By Himat in forum Aircraft Design / Aerodynamics / New Technology
    Replies: 806
    Last Post: July 1st, 2014, 09:10 AM
  2. Roadable airplane Design - Summary
    By Holden in forum Hangar Flying
    Replies: 91
    Last Post: April 5th, 2014, 02:59 PM
  3. Roadable airplane landing gear
    By Holden in forum Aircraft Design / Aerodynamics / New Technology
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: February 17th, 2014, 12:41 PM
  4. Roadable airplane crash protection -- Terrafugia analysis
    By Holden in forum Aircraft Design / Aerodynamics / New Technology
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: May 20th, 2013, 10:28 PM
  5. Government regulation changed and Roadable Airplane design
    By Holden in forum Aircraft Design / Aerodynamics / New Technology
    Replies: 87
    Last Post: December 8th, 2012, 07:57 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts