Comments on: The FLYING Automobile is Here

By: K!P

K!P — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 10:32:20 +0000

it’s an auto gyro, from the pictures it looks like there could be a push propellor fitted on the back. Removed for road travel or something.

(ok, the winglets do not make sens to me, just read that part)

By: Scott

Scott — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 15:11:22 +0000

In fairness, it does say it works like an autogyro. Autogyro blades spin freely (unpowered), and don’t need of a tail rotor or counter-rotating blade to keep them from spinning out of control. But I don’t understand how the little winglets would provide forward thrust, or how you would control its speed once in the air.

By: Torgo

Torgo — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 02:06:21 +0000

Personally I would rather have a DC-3.

By: Eliyahu

Eliyahu — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 00:13:09 +0000

“Some difficulty has been encountered in mounting the engine…” Always a good excuse for dealing with a design which couldn’t work in the first place.

By: Sven

Sven — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 18:58:46 +0000

g663 – Regarding the reaction torque (toilet bowl effect), not necessarily, some models have an extra set of blades (Co-axial) which spins in the opposite direction to equalize the rotation.

Sure, this model would spin crazy, what I am trying to say is that you don’t necessary need a tail rotor.

Another interesting detail about this design is that I don’t see any way of turning while in air, and taking a look at the design, it seems the center of gravity of this model is far too much in front (because of the engine, mounted in front) meaning it would most likely always have forward thrust.

Definitely smells like on of Hitlers publicity stunts.

By: g663

g663 — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 15:36:28 +0000

This design can’t possibly work. If the rotor is powered, reaction torque will attempt to rotate the cabin in the opposite direction. A tail rotor of the type used in helicopters would be needed to stabilize the cabin against that force. At that point, the tail rotor could instead have been used for forward thrust in conjunction with an unpowered rotor of the type conventional for autogyros.

Further, the rotor mounting is insufficiently braced. And further, the principle of using little winglets on the rotor for forward thrust is as far as I know unproven.

As well, n 3-wheeled vehicles, two wheels in front and a steered rear wheel is a highly unstable configuration. It works for slow-speed vehicles with low centers of gravity, for example street sweepers, but it doesn’t work for automobiles since the transfer of inertial mass while attempting to turn, can cause the vehicle to roll. This is what caused the accident for Bucky Fuller’s Dymaxion car and ultimately killed it off.

Last but not least. Germany, 1933. Hmm. Sounds like this was another of Hitler’s publicity stunts for German industry.

By: Scott

Scott — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 15:02:46 +0000

FINALLY!