Folding wings

Anti-Gravity ?
If there is a will there is a way. I think the only thing keeping it from
happening is the cost. There is no way to make it cost efficient at this
time.

Don't laugh.

Anti Gravity has been demonstrated in the lab.

Long way from the market but remember when the transister first came
out and people said what can you do with that.

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ``````````````````````````````

On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 08:35:09 -0800, "aluckyguess" wrote:

Anti-Gravity ?
If there is a will there is a way. I think the only thing keeping it from
happening is the cost. There is no way to make it cost efficient at this
time.

"Big John" wrote in message
...
Don't laugh.

Anti Gravity has been demonstrated in the lab.

Long way from the market but remember when the transister first came
out and people said what can you do with that.

No, they didn't. By the time the transistor had been invented, vacuum tube
had already been proven VERY useful in a wide variety of applications. A
transistor is just a very compact vacuum tube (minus the empty space, of
course ), at least in terms of function.

But even if that had been the case, the issue with anti-gravity isn't that
people say "what can you do with that?" I think pretty much everyone can
see lots of applications for anti-gravity. The real problem is that,
unlike the transistor, any theoretical demonstration of anti-gravity has
been in a context with no hope of real-world application.

The only real problem with a roadable airplane is practicality. Even cost
isn't insurmountable, since plenty of people spend plenty of money on plenty
of luxuries. There's obviously a size point at which a roadable car would
work; after all, in the worst case you just build an airplane large enough
to carry a car (which has already been done, of course).

The practicality problem comes in with respect to the fact that even people
who spend lots of money on luxuries don't like spending more money to solve
a problem than they really need to. And no matter what you do, it will
"always" be less expensive to hire a limo at your destination than to fly an
airplane that can turn into a limo at your destination. ("Always" in
quotes because, who knows?, maybe limos will get REALLY expensive some day).

Pete

Chris W wrote:

Just for fun, lets explore this idea some more. Obviously weight is
the
biggest problem or you could just mount a folding wing, tail feathers

and prop to your Honda.

That's pretty much what past attempts at flying cars have done.
Google for "aerocar" and "convaircar". For a more current project,
head on over to http://www.aerocar.com/ and see the Aerocar 2000.
It's pretty much the same concept with a Lotus Elise. One of Molt
Taylor's last efforts at a flying car came in the 80s. I think it was
called the Aerocar IV and consisted of a Honda CRX with detachable wing
and tail assembly. As I recall, that one had a 500 shp turboprop.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

"Chris W" wrote in message
news:0ILNd.1855$53.928@lakeread07...
mindenpilot wrote:

A much better idea is a flying garage Just get a small car and a
DC-3, and you have the best of both worlds

Most twins and some larger singles could handle the weight of
a motorcycle and perhaps even a passenger. Getting it through
the door might be a problem on many models.

For example, my old 1988 Kawasaki 750 Ninja is a tad bit over
500 pounds wet and my 1980 KZ750 was around 500 pounds dry.
Note that these are fairly large motorcycles and a modern 500
or 250 would be even lighter. My stripped down 1973 RD350 Yamaha
probably tops out at 200 pounds or less wet.

A custom design retaining system and removal of the seats
would even make the weight and balance mostly happy. Probably
even easy enough for one person to load. A lot depends on
the size of the motorcycle and how well the design handles the
weight. We'll pretend we have doors big enough to handle it.

The FAA might have something to say about having several gallons
of gasoline in the cockpit and removing the seats or replacing them
as needed. All that is up to the engineers and the lawyers.
I'm just the idea man.

"CryptWolf" wrote

Most twins and some larger singles could handle the weight of
a motorcycle and perhaps even a passenger. Getting it through
the door might be a problem on many models.

There you go! Much better solution than an aircar, made of unobtanium!

Some of the small scooters are smaller, and lighter, which should help
loading singlehanded.

The way around the door size issue and the seats, ect, is to go
experimental. You can do pretty much as you please, modification wise. A
number of designs could handle the loading and weight requirements.
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"CryptWolf" wrote

Most twins and some larger singles could handle the weight of
a motorcycle and perhaps even a passenger. Getting it through
the door might be a problem on many models.

There you go! Much better solution than an aircar, made of unobtanium!

Some of the small scooters are smaller, and lighter, which should help
loading singlehanded.

The way around the door size issue and the seats, ect, is to go
experimental. You can do pretty much as you please, modification wise. A
number of designs could handle the loading and weight requirements.

http://www.diblasi.com/

Paul

"Morgans" writes:


"CryptWolf" wrote

Most twins and some larger singles could handle the weight of
a motorcycle and perhaps even a passenger. Getting it through
the door might be a problem on many models.

There you go! Much better solution than an aircar, made of unobtanium!

http://www.pilatus-aircraft.com/2_ga...interior_3.jpg

--kyler

"Chris W" wrote in message
news:0ILNd.1855$53.928@lakeread07...
Just for fun, lets explore this idea some more. Obviously weight is the
biggest problem or you could just mount a folding wing, tail feathers and
prop to your Honda. The weight of a transmission to drive the wheels
directly alone would probably add to much weight to be practical. So you
suggested driving it with the prop with some kind of cage around it. If
you are going to put a cage around the prop, you might as well make it
useful. Make it a pusher prop with a ducted fan instead of a normal
simple prop. I think some home builder is working on a design like that.
Second have you ever noticed how amazingly horrible the ground handling of
every airplane I have ever seen is? To make it road worthy, even if just
for non-highway use, you would have to have a more car like suspension.
That of course is going to add a significant amount of weight to the
machine. One of the reasons airplanes are so unstable on the ground is,
by necessity the main wheels need to be pretty close to the CG. I'm not
sure you could get good ground handling with out moving the main wheels
further from the CG. Tires alone are going add a huge amount of weight,
if you try and drive around on typical airplane tires you are going to be
replacing them every time you turn around. Finally brakes, you are never
going to drive a vehicle like this on the road with out a much better
brake system than most airplanes have, and again that is going to add a
lot of weight. As another poster so rudely put it, no you can't make up
for weight with more horse power. Obviously it can and has been done, but
I doubt you will ever see a flying car that can drive or fly very good at
all.

I agree with all of your points.
Additionally, I think acceleration would be an issue.
If you were stopped at a red light, you might get some horns honked at you
unless you could start moving right away.
My plane has some lag before it starts moving.

It seems that we have identified about five areas to focus on:
1. propulsion (caged prop, pusher prop, ducted fan)
2. ground handling
3. tires
4. brakes
5. acceleration

I don't think this is a comprehensive list, but for the sake of argument,
let's say that it is.
The problem now becomes a whole lot more like engineering problem solving
than pie-in-the-sky.

I'll have to think about each of these a bit before trying to attempt
possible solutions, but now I have some things to think about.

Adam
N7966L
Beech Super III

"mindenpilot" wrote

It seems that we have identified about five areas to focus on:
1. propulsion (caged prop, pusher prop, ducted fan)
2. ground handling
3. tires
4. brakes
5. acceleration


I'll have to think about each of these a bit before trying to attempt
possible solutions, but now I have some things to think about.

Adam

Eliminate the moving prop, as thrust for ground propulsion. Doing so will
solve the acceleration problem. The dust it would throw up will make it
very unpopular, if not outlawed. The guard would have to have bars close
enough together to keep even a finger from getting into it, and most likely
even hair. I don't have my OSHA book with me, but I'm certain the regs on
the guard are very restrictive, and will keep the prop from being used on
the ground. *If* you got around the problems of using the prop on the
ground, the airflow restriction would be high enough to make it unusable for
air propulsion.
--
Jim in NC