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
|
|||
|
|||
On 3 Apr 2005 18:49:25 -0700, "Harry K"
wrote: Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired wrote: Well, to be technical about it was a picture I cut out of a magazine and folded into a paper airplane. It flew rather nicelly. Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired Levity aside, I am certain that the Moller air car -can- achieve horizontal flight. At least for a short distance off a carriers catapult. From what I have seen, Theoretically it should with proper power and controls be able to fly, BUT the practicality of 4 ducted fans, reliability and power balancing makes the Osprey tilt rotor look safe to me. To provide an operable car should not be beyond reach, but to make them safe and controllable would probably put them in the price class of a TBM-700. I have heard several engineers say they could fix most any thing... given enough money, but then again one of the engineers working on the land speed record made the statement (quite a few years ago), Given enough HP they could even blast the Queen Mary through the sound barrier. I guess I'd rate the practicality of both pretty much in the same region. Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com Harry K |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Roger wrote: [[.. munch ..]] I have heard several engineers say they could fix most any thing... given enough money, but then again one of the engineers working on the land speed record made the statement (quite a few years ago), Given enough HP they could even blast the Queen Mary through the sound barrier. Google for "orion spacecraft". Getting the Queen Mary to Mach 1 is a _trivial_ job for that kind of propulsion system. grin |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Robert Bonomi wrote:
Google for "orion spacecraft". Getting the Queen Mary to Mach 1 is a _trivial_ job for that kind of propulsion system. grin The orion was like shooting a bullet shaped 10 story building into space. It's a shame the project was scrapped. The fallout from it would have been less than from the 3rd world countries doing nuke tests. I taped the show on the Orion from the History channel and I'm over due to watch it again... Tony |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Anthony W wrote:
Robert Bonomi wrote: Google for "orion spacsatellite Getting the Queen Mary to Mach 1 is a _trivial_ job for that kind of propulsion system. grin The orion was like shooting a bullet shaped 10 story building into space. It's a shame the project was scrapped. The fallout from it would have been less than from the 3rd world countries doing nuke tests. I taped the show on the Orion from the History channel and I'm over due to watch it again... Tony Well reading one article it notes that the fallout was way underestimated because they figured to use nuclear fusion vice fission so would have significantly less fallout unfortunately the required fission triggers would mostly make up for any savings in fallout, the net affect is a very dirty launch. The biggest problem from what I read is EMP which would take out any satellite within about 1000 miles which wasn't a big deal in early 70's when there wasn't any satellites but these day's would take out hundreds of satellites cost billions and billions plus ****ing off more than a few countries g! John |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
UltraJohn wrote:
Anthony W wrote: Robert Bonomi wrote: Google for "orion spacsatellite Getting the Queen Mary to Mach 1 is a _trivial_ job for that kind of propulsion system. grin The orion was like shooting a bullet shaped 10 story building into space. It's a shame the project was scrapped. The fallout from it would have been less than from the 3rd world countries doing nuke tests. I taped the show on the Orion from the History channel and I'm over due to watch it again... Tony Well reading one article it notes that the fallout was way underestimated because they figured to use nuclear fusion vice fission so would have significantly less fallout unfortunately the required fission triggers would mostly make up for any savings in fallout, the net affect is a very dirty launch. The biggest problem from what I read is EMP which would take out any satellite within about 1000 miles which wasn't a big deal in early 70's when there wasn't any satellites but these day's would take out hundreds of satellites cost billions and billions plus ****ing off more than a few countries g! John As I recall they had a target launch date in the early 1960s and ecpected to reach the outter edge of the solar system by 1970. EMP wouldn't have been a problem in 1963... Doubt there will be anything remotely like like the Orion in my life time. Tony |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Haaa-haaa.... got me, got me goood!
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired wrote: Well, to be technical about it was a picture I cut out of a magazine and folded into a paper airplane. It flew rather nicelly. Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired I found the graph below interesting: http://www.pinksheets.com/quote/char...=2-6-9-0-0-512 I'm not sure if it's their stock price or the altitude graph during 'hover tests', measured in Inch.. Rob |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Rob Turk wrote:
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired wrote: Well, to be technical about it was a picture I cut out of a magazine and folded into a paper airplane. It flew rather nicelly. Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired I found the graph below interesting: http://www.pinksheets.com/quote/char...=2-6-9-0-0-512 I'm not sure if it's their stock price or the altitude graph during 'hover tests', measured in Inch.. Rob The scary part is people are still investing in this toy. Personally I'd laugh my butt off if some whiz kid could develop a workable sytem before Moller does. Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|