| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
27 Jan 2008 01:02:56 PM |
| Object: |
flying car |
I was just wondering what it would take to make a regular car into a
flying car. Isn't it mostly adding wings and adding a fan to the back?
.
|
|
| User: "CWatters" |
|
| Title: Re: flying car |
27 Jan 2008 03:48:11 PM |
|
|
<bob@coolgroups.com> wrote in message
news:6c28da1d-4ca7-42b1-86be-aaafe712b423@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
I was just wondering what it would take to make a regular car into a
flying car. Isn't it mostly adding wings and adding a fan to the back?
Great photos of past attempts...
http://travel.howstuffworks.com/flying-car2.htm
Video of flying car flying on Youtube..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElS9BKSsezw
Flying car captured on Google earth...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/23/flying_car/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ockham" |
|
| Title: Re: flying car |
27 Jan 2008 01:47:17 PM |
|
|
<bob@coolgroups.com> wrote in message
news:6c28da1d-4ca7-42b1-86be-aaafe712b423@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
|I was just wondering what it would take to make a regular car into a
|
| flying car. Isn't it mostly adding wings and adding a fan to the back?
I was just wondering what it would take to make a regular pig into a
flying pig. Isn't it mostly adding wings and adding a fan to the back?
http://www.techshout.com/images/flying-pigeon.jpg
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vince Morgan vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au" |
|
| Title: Re: flying car |
29 Jan 2008 06:51:15 PM |
|
|
"Ockham" <My@Razor.Shaves> wrote in message
news:9d5nj.16111$PN2.5286@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
<bob@coolgroups.com> wrote in message
news:6c28da1d-4ca7-42b1-86be-aaafe712b423@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
|I was just wondering what it would take to make a regular car into a
|
| flying car. Isn't it mostly adding wings and adding a fan to the back?
I was just wondering what it would take to make a regular pig into a
flying pig. Isn't it mostly adding wings and adding a fan to the back?
If you were to do that I think the s..t would hit the fan!
Vince
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: flying car |
27 Jan 2008 01:49:34 PM |
|
|
wrote:
I was just wondering what it would take to make a regular car into a
flying car. Isn't it mostly adding wings and adding a fan to the back?
Driving off a cliff helps too.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: flying car |
27 Jan 2008 01:35:03 PM |
|
|
wrote:
I was just wondering what it would take to make a regular car into a
flying car. Isn't it mostly adding wings and adding a fan to the back?
Sure; it is just like going to Mars.
Mostly you just have to build a really big rocket.
People have been trying to build a practical flying car for over 70
years now.
No one has succeeded.
The practical and regulatory requirements for a flying car are in conflict.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_car
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Fontenot" |
|
| Title: Re: flying car |
28 Jan 2008 01:13:01 PM |
|
|
wrote:
I was just wondering what it would take to make a regular car into a
flying car.
There have been some flying cars designed and flown, over the years.
I think the result has always been a lousy car and a lousy airplane...
i.e., the compromises required to do BOTH jobs preclude doing
EITHER job very well.
Mike Fontenot
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: flying car |
28 Jan 2008 01:24:39 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics,
<>
wrote
on Sun, 27 Jan 2008 11:02:56 -0800 (PST)
<6c28da1d-4ca7-42b1-86be-aaafe712b423@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com>:
I was just wondering what it would take to make a regular car into a
flying car. Isn't it mostly adding wings and adding a fan to the back?
There's a fair number of issues here, many of which I'm
not really all that competent to address, but the flying
car has been attempted before, with less than satisfactory
results from a marketing standpoint.
One of the more obvious problems: in ground transport, the
wings are dead weight, and in air transport, the wheels are
dead weight. Ideally, air transport would be all wing (and
flying wings do exist; the most obvious example nowadays
is the B-1B bomber, but it's merely the latest attempt --
and it is a successful if rather pricey affair).
I can note that a Cessna 120 has an 85 horsepower engine
and a top speed of 104 knots, with a dirty stall speed of
43 knots. It gets 390 nautical miles or 448.8 miles on
25 gallons of what is presumably a form of aviation fuel,
or 18 mpg. It is not exactly clear how much weight it
can carry but the difference between gross and empty is
632 pounds, or about three adults. (Fuel might subtract
a further 20-25 pounds.)
http://www.risingup.com/planespecs/info/airplane310.shtml
Now compare this to, say, a Ford Expedition. The engine
has 300 horsepower, with a 12 city/18 highway mpg rating.
(It is not clear what the Expedition's top speed is,
but most US highways would not allow it to roll faster
than 75 mph legally anyway.) This beast can seat 9 with
varying comfort, and can tow a 6000 pound trailer with an
auxiliary package.
http://www.fordvehicles.com/suvs/expedition/features/specs/
I could look further into such things as ambient noise but
it's already clear which can carry more, and can probably
do so more comfortably. Of course I will also note that
there's a lot of comparison one can do (Lear jet? 707?
787? Ferrari? Prius? A gas-powered cowled tricycle?);
these are merely two random items that I happen to know
a little about -- Cessnas being a very popular make of
private plane, and Ford Expedition being one of many sport
utility vehicles (SUVs).
--
#191,
Windows Vista. Because a BSOD is just so 20th century; why not
try our new color changing variant?
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: flying car |
28 Jan 2008 11:35:03 AM |
|
|
The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
In sci.physics,
<>
wrote
on Sun, 27 Jan 2008 11:02:56 -0800 (PST)
<6c28da1d-4ca7-42b1-86be-aaafe712b423@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com>:
I was just wondering what it would take to make a regular car into a
flying car. Isn't it mostly adding wings and adding a fan to the back?
There's a fair number of issues here, many of which I'm
not really all that competent to address, but the flying
car has been attempted before, with less than satisfactory
results from a marketing standpoint.
One of the more obvious problems: in ground transport, the
wings are dead weight, and in air transport, the wheels are
dead weight. Ideally, air transport would be all wing (and
flying wings do exist; the most obvious example nowadays
is the B-1B bomber, but it's merely the latest attempt --
and it is a successful if rather pricey affair).
Most airplanes need wheels also, but the design criteria is different
and they are smaller and lighter than the wheels on a ground vehicle
of comperable weight.
I can note that a Cessna 120 has an 85 horsepower engine
and a top speed of 104 knots, with a dirty stall speed of
43 knots. It gets 390 nautical miles or 448.8 miles on
25 gallons of what is presumably a form of aviation fuel,
or 18 mpg. It is not exactly clear how much weight it
can carry but the difference between gross and empty is
632 pounds, or about three adults. (Fuel might subtract
a further 20-25 pounds.)
Since a C120 has two seats, getting three in would be a good
trick.
Fuel is about 6 lb/gal, so 632 - (25 * 6) = 482 pounds usefull
payload with full fuel.
http://www.risingup.com/planespecs/info/airplane310.shtml
Now compare this to, say, a Ford Expedition. The engine
has 300 horsepower, with a 12 city/18 highway mpg rating.
(It is not clear what the Expedition's top speed is,
but most US highways would not allow it to roll faster
than 75 mph legally anyway.) This beast can seat 9 with
varying comfort, and can tow a 6000 pound trailer with an
auxiliary package.
http://www.fordvehicles.com/suvs/expedition/features/specs/
I could look further into such things as ambient noise but
it's already clear which can carry more, and can probably
do so more comfortably. Of course I will also note that
there's a lot of comparison one can do (Lear jet? 707?
787? Ferrari? Prius? A gas-powered cowled tricycle?);
these are merely two random items that I happen to know
a little about -- Cessnas being a very popular make of
private plane, and Ford Expedition being one of many sport
utility vehicles (SUVs).
You might have picked something designed after the 40's.
Cessna C172 SP, after 2003.
Cruise, 124 kts, 180HP, 4 seats, useful load 932 lbs, fuel 56 gal.
Payload with full full 932 - (56 * 6) = 596 pounds.
--
#191,
Windows Vista. Because a BSOD is just so 20th century; why not
try our new color changing variant?
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: flying car |
28 Jan 2008 09:33:59 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics,
<>
wrote
on Mon, 28 Jan 2008 17:35:03 GMT
<i9g175-igr.ln1@mail.specsol.com>:
The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
In sci.physics,
<>
wrote
on Sun, 27 Jan 2008 11:02:56 -0800 (PST)
<6c28da1d-4ca7-42b1-86be-aaafe712b423@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com>:
I was just wondering what it would take to make a regular car into a
flying car. Isn't it mostly adding wings and adding a fan to the back?
There's a fair number of issues here, many of which I'm
not really all that competent to address, but the flying
car has been attempted before, with less than satisfactory
results from a marketing standpoint.
One of the more obvious problems: in ground transport, the
wings are dead weight, and in air transport, the wheels are
dead weight. Ideally, air transport would be all wing (and
flying wings do exist; the most obvious example nowadays
is the B-1B bomber, but it's merely the latest attempt --
and it is a successful if rather pricey affair).
Most airplanes need wheels also, but the design criteria is different
and they are smaller and lighter than the wheels on a ground vehicle
of comperable weight.
Indeed.
I can note that a Cessna 120 has an 85 horsepower engine
and a top speed of 104 knots, with a dirty stall speed of
43 knots. It gets 390 nautical miles or 448.8 miles on
25 gallons of what is presumably a form of aviation fuel,
or 18 mpg. It is not exactly clear how much weight it
can carry but the difference between gross and empty is
632 pounds, or about three adults. (Fuel might subtract
a further 20-25 pounds.)
Since a C120 has two seats, getting three in would be a good
trick.
Fuel is about 6 lb/gal, so 632 - (25 * 6) = 482 pounds usefull
payload with full fuel.
Eeek...that's what I get for working with SI too often. :-)
http://www.risingup.com/planespecs/info/airplane310.shtml
Now compare this to, say, a Ford Expedition. The engine
has 300 horsepower, with a 12 city/18 highway mpg rating.
(It is not clear what the Expedition's top speed is,
but most US highways would not allow it to roll faster
than 75 mph legally anyway.) This beast can seat 9 with
varying comfort, and can tow a 6000 pound trailer with an
auxiliary package.
http://www.fordvehicles.com/suvs/expedition/features/specs/
I could look further into such things as ambient noise but
it's already clear which can carry more, and can probably
do so more comfortably. Of course I will also note that
there's a lot of comparison one can do (Lear jet? 707?
787? Ferrari? Prius? A gas-powered cowled tricycle?);
these are merely two random items that I happen to know
a little about -- Cessnas being a very popular make of
private plane, and Ford Expedition being one of many sport
utility vehicles (SUVs).
You might have picked something designed after the 40's.
Cessna C172 SP, after 2003.
Cruise, 124 kts, 180HP, 4 seats, useful load 932 lbs, fuel 56 gal.
Payload with full full 932 - (56 * 6) = 596 pounds.
OK. What's its range?
A 172 C at
http://www.risingup.com/planespecs/info/airplane294.shtml
doesn't quite match horsepower wise.
A 172 Q Cutlass has 180 HP with a cruise speed of 122 knots,
and a fuel capacity of 54 gallons over a range of 475 nautical
miles or 546.6 miles. That's 10.1 mpg.
http://www.risingup.com/planespecs/info/airplane281.shtml
It has a carry capacity apparently of about 746 pounds.
--
#191,
Windows Vista. Because a BSOD is just so 20th century; why not
try our new color changing variant?
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
--
#191,
Useless C/C++ Programming Idea #1123133:
void f(FILE * fptr, char *p) { fgets(p, sizeof(p), fptr); }
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: flying car |
30 Jan 2008 11:15:03 AM |
|
|
The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
In sci.physics,
<>
wrote
on Mon, 28 Jan 2008 17:35:03 GMT
<i9g175-igr.ln1@mail.specsol.com>:
You might have picked something designed after the 40's.
Cessna C172 SP, after 2003.
Cruise, 124 kts, 180HP, 4 seats, useful load 932 lbs, fuel 56 gal.
Payload with full full 932 - (56 * 6) = 596 pounds.
OK. What's its range?
A 172 C at
http://www.risingup.com/planespecs/info/airplane294.shtml
doesn't quite match horsepower wise.
A 172 Q Cutlass has 180 HP with a cruise speed of 122 knots,
and a fuel capacity of 54 gallons over a range of 475 nautical
miles or 546.6 miles. That's 10.1 mpg.
http://www.risingup.com/planespecs/info/airplane281.shtml
It has a carry capacity apparently of about 746 pounds.
The 172 has been in production for about 50 years now.
Originally the engine was 145 HP, then 150 for a while, then 160
for a long while, and most recently 180 hp.
There are also the 172RG (retractable gear) and the 172XP which
had constant speed props.
The 172N, which came out about 1979, was the first model with 160 hp
and the 160 hp models are probably the most common. BTW, a lot of the
older 172 have been retrofited with 160 hp engines.
Anyway, from the 1980 172N information manual:
Maximum at sea level 125 kt
Cruise 75% power @ 8000 feet 122 kt
Standard tanks 43 gal, 40 gal usable
Long range tanks 54 gal, 50 gal usable
Maximum takeoff weight 2300 pounds
Typical empty weight 1454 pounds (depends on installed equipment)
Typical useful load 846 pounds
Payload with full long range tanks 846 - (6 * 54) = 522 pounds
Payload with full standard tanks 846 - (6 * 43) = 588 pounds
Range, 75% power @ 8000 feet:
Standard 455 nm, 3.8 hr
Long range 600 nm, 5.0 hr
Range, economy power @ 10,000 feet:
Standard 575 nm, 6.1 hr
Long range 750 nm, 7.9 hr
Keep in mind these are nautical miles and knots; multiply by 1.15
to get standard miles.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "tadchem" |
|
| Title: Re: flying car |
27 Jan 2008 04:01:41 PM |
|
|
On Jan 27, 2:02 pm, wrote:
I was just wondering what it would take to make a regular car into a
flying car. Isn't it mostly adding wings and adding a fan to the back?
A long run-up to a small ramp is a good start.
In Ocala last week a 2008 BMW managed a 200 foot flight.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/01/26/airstrip.car.crash/
Survivability of the landing is a different problem.
So is re-usability after that first flight.
Final score, Florida Oak Trees - 5, Drunken Teens at 3:45 AM - 0.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
