View Single Post
  #7  
Old February 28th 04, 06:55 PM
lance smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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