 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / General / Models / March 2008Another "unique" model subject.
Show up at the next model contest with your giant bus model that has a airfield on its roof: http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2008/03/26/unique-bus-of-future-to-duplicate-spee d-of-railroads/ Pat Cool picture. I collect old science fiction and have looked through old stacks of Popular Science at some of the dealers - I don't think any of the featured future systems ever really happened - almost like "Be on popular Science and disappear". Everything from the family submarine to weird versions of land, sea and air vehicles. Many would make really cool looking models - like Luft 46 and some of the Victorian space age stuff. It's interesting that in most cases they never saw break throughs like jet engines - instead we had 24 engine pusher/puller sea planes that were like flying hotels. Illogical projections of how far we could push an existing concept. Val Kraut > Show up at the next model contest with your giant bus model that has a > airfield on its roof: > http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2008/03/26/unique-bus-of-future-to-duplicate-spee d-of-railroads/ > > Pat I've always considered them fun what-if reads rather then serious attempts to extrapolate a likely future. But I still hope to see more postings on it in future ;) > Cool picture. I collect old science fiction and have looked through old > stacks of Popular Science at some of the dealers - I don't think any of the [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > > Pat > I've always considered them fun what-if reads rather then serious > attempts to extrapolate a likely future. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> flying hotels. Illogical projections of how far we could push an existing >> concept. I try to mine the possibilities from the absurd. While the Uber-Bus is out, I can see how you could attempt something along these lines with helicopters and trains. I'm not sure what the application or need could be, but a helipad rail car is very do-able. I wouldn't be surprised if one doesn't already exist in the world somewhere. I can visualize some guy straight out of the pages of James Bond - Eastern European, politically connected former Soviet General now astride the world's richest oil supply - speeding across the open expanses of Russia on his Siberian Streamliner. Gets a call, hops aboard his private helo and away he goes - to the ABBA Mama Mia show. ;-) One of my big what ifs the last several years was imagining the possibilities of combining the properties of an airship with a jet airliner. A year or two ago a company popped up (on my radar at least) pursuing that very line of thinking. It's nice to be validated. ;-) For me the safety you could build into a semi-buoyant aircraft along with the potential heavy or oversized object lifting capabilities and the potential for reduced fuel costs make such musings worthwhile. I have no idea what the guy behind this "CV Greyhound" had in mind. WmB > One of my big what ifs the last several years was imagining the > possibilities of combining the properties of an airship with a jet airliner. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > oversized object lifting capabilities and the potential for reduced fuel > costs make such musings worthwhile. Which brings to mind the question, what ever happened to the Piasecki Helistat-concept heavy lifter? That was shown in Popular Science a number of times, both in drawings and some photographs, and then dropped off the radar, so to speak.... > Which brings to mind the question, what ever happened to the Piasecki > Helistat-concept heavy lifter? That was shown in Popular Science a > number of times, both in drawings and some photographs, and then > dropped off the radar, so to speak.... > After the prototype fell apart in midair - killing one of the crew - they canceled the project. Pat Pat Flannery said the following on 30/03/2008 06:50: >> Which brings to mind the question, what ever happened to the Piasecki >> Helistat-concept heavy lifter? That was shown in Popular Science a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Pat Now that's an interesting project. Anyone got lots of spare sprue? http://www.piasecki.com/pa-39.htm On Mar 30, 8:22 am, Richard Brooks <richardbro...@vickers- armstrongs.com> wrote: > Pat Flannery said the following on 30/03/2008 06:50: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > http://www.piasecki.com/pa-39.htm Pity that they dropped the idea. Think what a good water bomber it could be fighting forest fires. > Pity that they dropped the idea. Think what a good water bomber it > could be fighting forest fires. > Some of the people who worked on the Helistat quit the company before it flew, as they thought that the whole thing was a accident waiting to happen, and that the whole structure that held the four helicopter fuselages wasn't designed correctly from a structural point of view. Although the four rotors would give it a great deal of lift, what about forward thrust and controllability in turns? In even a modest wind it might have gotten blown all over the place. As to the PA-39 concept...the Russians built this thing, and it was a mess to control: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-12 If two widely separated rotors cause that much trouble, imagine four as far as controllability goes. Actually, even this looks more like a sound idea than the PA-39: http://www.aviastar.org/helicopters_eng/yak_vvp-6.php Meanwhile, it's time to look at Capt. Rickenbacker's Airplane of the Future: http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2008/03/28/capt-rickenbackers-airplane-of-the-future/ If you look at the cutaway of the control cabin, the pilot flies it while standing and via a ship's wheel. Oh course, that thing is puny compared to Bel Geddes Airliner #4 design: http://home.att.net/~dannysoar/BelGeddes.htm Now there's a model that needs to be made. Pat Pat Flannery said the following on 30/03/2008 16:33: >> Pity that they dropped the idea. Think what a good water bomber it >> could be fighting forest fires. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > If two widely separated rotors cause that much trouble, imagine four as > far as controllability goes. What about the Dragonfly? Okay, I know it's a model but an interesting concept. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7jpvyQ-Tyc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2qp2ai7bdw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhZ0SqllShc > What about the Dragonfly? Okay, I know it's a model but an > interesting concept. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7jpvyQ-Tyc > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2qp2ai7bdw > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhZ0SqllShc Never saw that one before; it looks like a interesting approach to a small UAV. I think scaling is going to be a problem though, along with Piasecki's desire to use four stock helicopter bodies hooked together, rather than building something new. Pat Pat Flannery said the following on 30/03/2008 22:00: >> What about the Dragonfly? Okay, I know it's a model but an >> interesting concept. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Pat I did read somewhere that one police force is using one of those Dragonflies to monitor crowds and to see over stuff. on 3/30/2008 11:33 AM Pat Flannery said the following: >> Pity that they dropped the idea. Think what a good water bomber it >> could be fighting forest fires. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Pat Check out the size of the pontoons that allow that thing to float. :-)  SignatureBill In Hamptonburgh, NY To email, remove the double zeroes after @ > Check out the size of the pontoons that allow that thing to float. :-) Of course they double as passenger areas. That wasn't the only twin-fuselaged tailless design around at the time either. The 1936 movie "Things To Come" had gigantic twin-fuselaged tailless aircraft in it also: http://home.att.net/~dannysoar3/ThingsToCome.htm http://members.tripod.com/~rbowser/metropolis/things18.jpg Pat on 3/30/2008 6:43 PM Pat Flannery said the following: >> Check out the size of the pontoons that allow that thing to float. :-) > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Pat I'm talking about the pontoons themselves. Look at the waterline on the front view. They couldn't float a plane 1/10th the size of that plane., SignatureBill In Hamptonburgh, NY To email, remove the double zeroes after @ > I'm talking about the pontoons themselves. Look at the waterline on > the front view. They couldn't float a plane 1/10th the size of that > plane., It depends on how lightweight the overall structure of the plane is (I admit, it sure doesn't look lightweight, does it?) Note that for all its immense size, the weight is supposed to be less that twice that of a 747-400 -1,275,300 lb versus 870,000 lb. The very low speed (150 mph max, 100 mph cruising) and lack of pressurization will save a lot of weight, but I doubt anywhere near that much weight. In short, this thing is supposed to be built more like a passenger dirigible than a passenger aircraft as far as structural weight goes (and speed also...Hindenburg could hit 84 mph). Bel Geddes was far more a stylist than a structural engineer, so his estimates of overall weight are probably way low. Those pontoons on the aircraft may look small in the drawing, but when you check the scale, each is around 120 feet long by 50 feet wide at it widest point, and penetrates around 20 feet into the water at its deepest point. That's a significant amount of water being displaced I don't know; maybe the whole wing is fabric covered, or the aircraft skinned in balsa wood. Somehow you'd expect it to be covered in corrugated metal sheet, like something Junkers would come up with. It doesn't look like something you want to fly through a thunderstorm in. ;-) Pat |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.