mcarterbrown.com  

General Chat MCB's Coffee House: Pull up a seat, and grab your favorite caffeinated beverage. Non-paintball related chat within.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-15-2013, 10:31 PM   #31 (permalink)
MCB Member
 
SilentNuke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: In the maintenance lab

CCM Fan
Quote:
Originally Posted by alpha434 View Post
It's already been done half a dozen times.

Even with vehicles in customer hands, no company has been able to grab traction in the market... I think that it's predominantly a cost to consumer issue. A car that converts into a plane will cost as much as a similar sized plane. And won't get you chicks like a corvette.
I meant to say a street legal car the general public can fly.
__________________
MCB Feedback
SilentNuke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2013, 10:38 PM   #32 (permalink)
Post Whore
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: PEI, Canada

Quote:
Originally Posted by SilentNuke View Post
Never going to happen. I say this as a pilot. A street legal skycar? The average idiot can't even drive a car. Most cars are automatic now and have very limited controllability forward and reverse sometimes you even get to turn it. Very simple concept yet people get distracted and kill each other. No way an "average person" can control a vehicle in 3 different planes (fly). Fun idea impossible in practice.
And pilots are too stupid to drive cars?

Large vehicles with air breaks are street legal, but not everyone is allowed to operate them.

Not to mention that the most advanced air craft literally fly themselves (I should know, I've navigated for some of them and watched them fly their routes), and we also have far more air space than road space. Getting the majority of drivers into safe, reliable, automated air cars would make our roads a vastly safer place.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lrrpie-CT View Post
I destroy drives for clients all the time. Sometimes, intentionally.
Luckless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2013, 11:59 PM   #33 (permalink)
MCB Member
 
SilentNuke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: In the maintenance lab

CCM Fan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luckless View Post
And pilots are too stupid to drive cars?

Large vehicles with air breaks are street legal, but not everyone is allowed to operate them.

Not to mention that the most advanced air craft literally fly themselves (I should know, I've navigated for some of them and watched them fly their routes), and we also have far more air space than road space. Getting the majority of drivers into safe, reliable, automated air cars would make our roads a vastly safer place.
I never said stupid ha. You are attacking pilots calling them too stupid to drive? I just wrote that I was a pilot that is not very nice. I said the average idiot can't drive a car and the average person can't fly. It was a joke. I figure everyone could relate with. Yes, people need further training and licenses for flying. Flying is completely different from driving a car and flying is vastly more complex, wouldn't you agree as a navigator? Yes, advanced aircraft can fly themselves but they can't troubleshoot with instinct and they can't do an emergency landings while calculating true human risk.

Your last statement, moving the risk to the airways. Our current airspace laws will not permit a broad use of the skycar. Those laws are slow moving and even slower to adapt to new technology. It is often said that the laws in aviation are written in the blood of those who died in an accident. When aviation laws can't keep up with the technology people die, a lot of people die. When I say never, I mean the general public will never get into a skycar and fly (control the craft) to their destination. Sure a few dozen may have this luxury but not the general public. Very cool concept, but not practical.
__________________
MCB Feedback
SilentNuke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 12:07 AM   #34 (permalink)
Banned
 
alpha434's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008

AKA Fan
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilentNuke View Post
I never said stupid ha. You are attacking pilots calling them too stupid to drive? I just wrote that I was a pilot that is not very nice. I said the average idiot can't drive a car and the average person can't fly. It was a joke. I figure everyone could relate with. Yes, people need further training and licenses for flying. Flying is completely different from driving a car and flying is vastly more complex, wouldn't you agree as a navigator? Yes, advanced aircraft can fly themselves but they can't troubleshoot with instinct and they can't do an emergency landings while calculating true human risk.

Your last statement, moving the risk to the airways. Our current airspace laws will not permit a broad use of the skycar. Those laws are slow moving and even slower to adapt to new technology. It is often said that the laws in aviation are written in the blood of those who died in an accident. When aviation laws can't keep up with the technology people die, a lot of people die. When I say never, I mean the general public will never get into a skycar and fly (control the craft) to their destination. Sure a few dozen may have this luxury but not the general public. Very cool concept, but not practical.
What's the floor on where aviation law starts? 100 feet?

I always think it's weird when I hear someone talking about "everyone being too stupid to breath" or somesuch nonsense. I look at all the people I spoke to today, and can't remember a single idiot. If everyone around me is "above average", then obviously, the average is raised.

Obviously, skydrivers would be licensed in the operation of their vehicles... Just like drivers, pilots, motorcycle riders, emergency vehicle operators, commercial vehicle operators, and construction vehicle operators before them.

In the past, sky cars have been a "drive to the airport, take off, land at another airport, drive off" kind of thing. And I can definitely see the value in that.
alpha434 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 02:51 AM   #35 (permalink)
MCB Member
 
SilentNuke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: In the maintenance lab

CCM Fan
Quote:
Originally Posted by alpha434 View Post
What's the floor on where aviation law starts? 100 feet?

I always think it's weird when I hear someone talking about "everyone being too stupid to breath" or somesuch nonsense. I look at all the people I spoke to today, and can't remember a single idiot. If everyone around me is "above average", then obviously, the average is raised.

Obviously, skydrivers would be licensed in the operation of their vehicles... Just like drivers, pilots, motorcycle riders, emergency vehicle operators, commercial vehicle operators, and construction vehicle operators before them.

In the past, sky cars have been a "drive to the airport, take off, land at another airport, drive off" kind of thing. And I can definitely see the value in that.
Again the idiot thing was a joke. A dramatization and an exaggeration.

All I am saying is a large percentage of the population can't handle the controls and knowledge required to just go fly around. Just like getting a CDL more knowledge is required to get the license.

This argument is like saying we will all be doctors one day, because of the advancement in technology we will be able to diagnose and treat ourselves without the aid of a qualified professional.

To answer your question the laws start at the surface. You have controlled and uncontrolled airspace.


Driving to the airport and taking off. Well lets see if that would save any time . Salt Lake City is a little over and hour away from where I live. A little more than a average work commute. Now if I fly its only about 25 mins in a light weight aircraft. But I have to drive to the airport 15min away. Do a weight and balance check 4 min. Then a preflight 8 mins. Then a run up 3 mins. Then taxi to the runway 4 mins. Then wait in line for my turn to take off 2mins. Then climb to altitude to clear the mountains 10 mins then fly towards Salt Lake City. Then contact ATC and receive instructions to land 2 mins. Fly the pattern as they direct 3-5mins . Then land 2-5mins then taxi off 2mins. Then leave the airport and get on the freeway 5-25 mins. Then drive to Salt Lake City 10 mins. As you can see flying takes more time then driving .
__________________
MCB Feedback
SilentNuke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 03:11 AM   #36 (permalink)
Active Member
 
Blue60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Ontario, Canada

Bobcat has a tire kinda like the ones in the video.
Solid Bobcat Tires Promotion,Buy Promotional Solid Bobcat Tires on Alibaba.com
Blue60 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 10:11 AM   #37 (permalink)
Banned
 
alpha434's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008

AKA Fan
Where do you keep your plane?
alpha434 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 11:33 AM   #38 (permalink)
Seasoned Member
 
titan aresta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Toronto, Canada

Quote:
Originally Posted by Surf2Live View Post
Second, the Tweel needs to have high profile "sidewalls", and smaller diameter wheels. False. We were successfully testing ~31.5" comparable tires with a 1.5" thick treadband and a ~14" hub on a mid-size commercial truck; on and off-road conditions, city and highway speeds.
oookay, my whole post was about the impossibility of making a Tweel for the general market of passenger car tires. Not once did I say you can't make large OD Tweels. My point was that you can't build a low profile Tweel that looks the same as a 25" OD tire with 17" rims that someone would put on their Honda. Yes, chances are that that Honda doesn't need anything larger than a 15" steel rim, and average profile tires, but the modern trend is to have good looking rims, and low profile tires. Every single Tweel I've ever seen is a high profile tire, and that seems necessary to its ability to work. I have no doubt that you can build 31" OD Tweels, but the vast vast vast majority of cars and SUVs on the market are well below 31" OD..

Quote:
First, lowering HP has nothing to do with the brake's ability to stop a vehicle or the components chosen for said system. The weight of a vehicle and rate of travel determine the vehicle's inertia that must be overcome to bring the vehicle to a stop within a specified distance. Brakes are sized for the thermal capacity required as the forward kinetic energy of the vehicle is converted into heat by the braking system noting that the coefficient of friction of the pad/shoe material decreases as temperature increases. Heat is transferred through the caliper into the fluid, or through the shoe into the drum and the caliper/disk/drum begin to heat soak. Second, the spokes in the Tweel project radially outward from the hub in the same plane as the hub. The hub could be 5" in diameter and the spokes still would not interfere with the braking system. The differential spring rate of the spoke material as it heats and cools with use is the limiting technological factor at this point.
Again you seem to misunderstand what my point was. While the increase in vehicle weight plays somewhat into it, the main reason why brakes are getting bigger on cars is that most cars are getting more powerful. If you're increasing the power of a car, and thus it's ability to go faster faster, you need to increase it's ability to stop faster as well. Aftermarket brake solutions don't exist because people are adding tons of weight to their modified cars. They exist because people want to be able to stop from ludicrous speeds.
When you increase the size of the your rotors and calipers, you generally have to get bigger rims and lower profile tires to compensate for that. Since you can't make a very low profile Tweel, you can't make it work with a modern car.

Quote:
Tweels are capable of being retreaded as is common in the trucking, heavy equipment, and aircraft industries as a means of reducing the cost of ownership of the tire. Again, lifespan of the spoke material with repeated heat cycling was the limiting factor when we were involved.
And once again this is something that only applies to trucking and big tires, while the whole time I'm talking about your average passenger car/SUV. Here in Ontario it is illegal to retread passenger/LT tires, I don't see that changing no matter what tire technology it involves.
titan aresta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 12:06 PM   #39 (permalink)
Banned
 
alpha434's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008

AKA Fan
Quote:
Originally Posted by titan aresta View Post
oookay, my whole post was about the impossibility of making a Tweel for the general market of passenger car tires. Not once did I say you can't make large OD Tweels. My point was that you can't build a low profile Tweel that looks the same as a 25" OD tire with 17" rims that someone would put on their Honda. Yes, chances are that that Honda doesn't need anything larger than a 15" steel rim, and average profile tires, but the modern trend is to have good looking rims, and low profile tires. Every single Tweel I've ever seen is a high profile tire, and that seems necessary to its ability to work. I have no doubt that you can build 31" OD Tweels, but the vast vast vast majority of cars and SUVs on the market are well below 31" OD..



Again you seem to misunderstand what my point was. While the increase in vehicle weight plays somewhat into it, the main reason why brakes are getting bigger on cars is that most cars are getting more powerful. If you're increasing the power of a car, and thus it's ability to go faster faster, you need to increase it's ability to stop faster as well. Aftermarket brake solutions don't exist because people are adding tons of weight to their modified cars. They exist because people want to be able to stop from ludicrous speeds.
When you increase the size of the your rotors and calipers, you generally have to get bigger rims and lower profile tires to compensate for that. Since you can't make a very low profile Tweel, you can't make it work with a modern car.



And once again this is something that only applies to trucking and big tires, while the whole time I'm talking about your average passenger car/SUV. Here in Ontario it is illegal to retread passenger/LT tires, I don't see that changing no matter what tire technology it involves.
Facepalms for physics.
alpha434 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 12:51 PM   #40 (permalink)
I like Spyders now
 
Surf2Live's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Newport Beach, CA - Orange County

Quote:
Originally Posted by alpha434 View Post
Facepalms for physics.


Let's argue with one of the engineers that worked on the development program in conjunction with Michelin

indeed... a 3000lb sedan traveling at a velocity of 70 mph has the exact same inertia whether it has 150 HP or 15,000 HP. The kinetic energy of the forward motion of the car will generate the same amount of heat in the same braking system.

Titan, so you can visualize how the size of the hub in no way affects the Tweel's fitment with respect to the brakes on a vehicle I want you to get a couple of pieces of cardboard and cut out a 5" circle and a 20" circle (be sure to add the correct bolt pattern for your vehicle. Take one wheel off of whatever type of vehicle you drive and install the cardboard circles one at a time. I will bet you all of the money in the world that the cardboard circles do not interfere with the brakes. This is what I meant when I said the spokes radiate outward from the hub in the same plane as the hub. The hub is also not concave like a standard wheel, it is just a solid disk. As long as the ID of the treadband hoop is not smaller than the brake disk/caliper combo there will be no interference. It is impossible. Dumbledore and Gandolf's magic combined could not make it happen.

The heat cycling of the spoke material resultant from the tires heating and cooling during operation/non-operation of the vehicle respectively causes the elastic properties of the material to change over time leading to unpredictable performance of the Tweel and ultimate failure.
__________________
FEEDBACK
Surf2Live is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  mcarterbrown.com » General » General Chat

Thread Tools

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
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO
© MCB Network LLC