Political Forums  

Go Back   Political Forums > Off-topic
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

We appreciate your help

in keeping this site going.
 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #10  
Old 01-09-2013, 03:49 PM
Combwork's Avatar
Combwork Combwork is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 658
Sightseeing?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueStreak View Post
The idea has been bandied about in recent times. It usually comes down to speed.
30 mph or 600 mph? Makes a huge difference when travelling 3,000 miles. Besides our effed up politics, it's the same problem that dogs rail travel in the US. It would save huge amounts of fuel, have near-zero emissions and provide a pleasant, interesting travel experience flying low and slow so you can see the pretty scenery. But, here in America it would get zero support.

I can hear it now;

"F**k that stupid balloon. If I want to fly, I'll take a jet and be there in 1/20th the time." Then they'd make some ignorant sarcastic comment about how only "prissy Marxist Europeans fly in balloons", or some such idiotic nonsense.

Regards,
Dave

I wonder how much R & D it would need to get something with the ability to carry say, 100 people (including crew) past safety requirements into the air. The Hindenburg had very heavy diesel engines, had to carry fuel for the engines plus food for passengers and crew. Apart from the initial purchase cost of photo-voltaic cells and their design life, running costs would be low. If tourists are happy to travel through the Rockies behind a steam locomotive, would they pay significantly more than that to look at the mountains from above?

The idea behind the doughnut design was that no matter what direction the wind came from, if the top surface had the same profile as the wing on a plane it would lift. There could be a slight problem in that the ring having a wing profile over 360 degrees means that the wind flowing over and lifting the wing at the 'front' would flow over and hit the wing at the 'back' which due to it having the reverse profile to the one at the 'front' could push it downwards.

The problem with 'simple' ideas is trying to make the bloody things work. The Victorians had the right approach. "You want to build it? fair enough. If it kills you, fair enough. If it kills bystanders, also fair enough; they shouldn't have been standing so close. Well, apart from one or two bits and pieces I guess they're not close anymore"
Reply With Quote
 


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:29 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.