Doggzilla
Well-Known Member
A lot of people like to say that certain designs are impossible, such as flying cars.
The problem is that many designs are not on a level playing field with standard aircraft. An entry level Cessna costs more than the average house. The average new single engine aircraft cost half a million dollars.
Many aircraft in the million dollar range have turbine engines.
Isnt it a little unfair to be comparing designs powered by makeshift powerplants to aircraft that cost so much more and have such a power advantage?
For instance, flying cars are generally very underpowered and yet somehow manage to FUNCTION.
Now imagine those designs with the same price tags as the competition AND engines. The functional designs would likely become vastly more impressive.
If a flying car can manage to work on 200hp... its pretty safe to say it would perform well with a 700hp turbine.
Is the problem with "failed" designs that they are truly bad designs, or that they are just not on a level playing field?
The problem is that many designs are not on a level playing field with standard aircraft. An entry level Cessna costs more than the average house. The average new single engine aircraft cost half a million dollars.
Many aircraft in the million dollar range have turbine engines.
Isnt it a little unfair to be comparing designs powered by makeshift powerplants to aircraft that cost so much more and have such a power advantage?
For instance, flying cars are generally very underpowered and yet somehow manage to FUNCTION.
Now imagine those designs with the same price tags as the competition AND engines. The functional designs would likely become vastly more impressive.
If a flying car can manage to work on 200hp... its pretty safe to say it would perform well with a 700hp turbine.
Is the problem with "failed" designs that they are truly bad designs, or that they are just not on a level playing field?
