![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Hmmm... a double-balloon balloon with wings. I wouldn't invest in
it/him. the double balloon concept: it could have better control over roll but it will expensive in terms of weight and drag. Extra fabric, structural components, etc. Then again is added control needed? We've been flying around in blimps/etc for a century without problems in this area (to the best of my knowledge). And pitch shouldn't be an issue, separate chambers inthe front/back of a -long- tube will fix that. Only 50% larger than a 747 to carry the same load? I'm using preliminary specs from the imaginary CL160 program from the Zeppelin company to extrapolate here. (but I consider Zeppelin a bit more credible, the current company is making rigid airships now; can the data be compared to the gravityplane is another matter) Anyways the CL160 is supposed to be 250m x 65m x 82m in length with a payload of 160 tons. The 747 is 70 meters long and has a load of 125 tons. So then the gravplane needs to be roughly 3x the length. I wonder how the inventor got the 4x improvement numbers over existing wind turbines. Some data along with the claims would be nice. Overall the general concept is sound, we all know it could work. There's nothing cutting edge about this and current algorithims and models will work- so why does he need to prove the idea in the ocean? Submarines have diveplanes. Why the glider tests? We already have gliders and balloons. To me he seems like a crackpot inventor just wanting to play. If he was serious why not break out the engineers to see what is feasible technically abd draw up some real plans, and then bust out the finance types to see if it is worth doing? my .02 -lance smith "Louis L. Perley III" wrote in message ... Saw an article today about an aircraft that would change it's buoyancy, so it would float up like a balloon and then change buoyancy and glide down. Interesting stuff, although I doubt we'll see it anytime soon. Is something like this even practical? The article says they take the aircraft up 10 miles to get 400 miles range, I would think ATC wouldn't like the idea of a free balloon (which is what it would be at that point) up in the flight levels. http://www.machinedesign.com/ASP/vie...PACE&catId=379 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Hey! What fun!! Let's let them kill ourselves!!! | [email protected] | Naval Aviation | 2 | December 17th 04 09:45 PM |
Best Home Base Work | Reynard | Owning | 0 | November 9th 04 04:37 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | June 2nd 04 07:17 AM |
Highest-Ranking Black Air Force General Credits Success to Hard Work | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | February 10th 04 11:06 PM |
Ford V-6 engine work | Corky Scott | Home Built | 19 | August 21st 03 12:04 PM |