Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

My idea for a flying car...

  1. Oct 1, 2015 #1
    My idea for a flying car...


    The image below shows my idea for what i call a flyer [flying car/vehicle]. The basic principle is to utilise lift instead of thrust momentum as the means of take-off and flight. This means it wont blow air everywhere and doesn't have dangerous blades [also has safety micro-gauze around wing-mesh], thus providing an improvement to helicopters and a greater diversity of landing potential. The essential idea is simple, if e.g. You tied a small rc plane to a pole by wire, it could take off and land as usual but in circular fashion, so if you had hundreds of them they would do the same. Now add a spoke to connect them to the pole and they would lift en masse as a complete unit. Each disk of wings added together [4X4] would give similar amount of lift to a small light aircraft, where essentially we are rearranging the functionality of such a craft into this form.


    The vehicle would be mostly composed of artificial black diamond [using my carbon manifestor invention idea [like a 3D printer but not that]] and so is extremely light in weight, and 5 times stronger than the finest steel. The method this version uses is what i call a ‘wing-mesh’ which is a collection of small wings in multiple disks, connected by carbon wires in rings such to provide tilting action akin to take off position for aircraft. A small [non-drive] propeller can be added in front of the oncoming rotation segment of the wing-mesh, so as to create greater air density. A set of multiple small main drive propellers are stationed at the rear of the vehicle and are switched on once the vehicle is say 30ft in the air. they are small so as to provide a smaller thrust vector. The ultra-high-speed motors will have carbonado [black diamond] wires for lightness [instead of copper] and greater rotary speed, this due to the material having 5 times greater conductivity than copper.


    Ideally as the inventor i would make it very reliable with 3D vision provided by cameras [and emergency parachutes] at the four corners, along with all available detection technology.


    flyer%20%20txt%202k_zpslefyv2nv.jpg


    flyer%201%202048_zpsktuy4wev.jpg


    details_zpss5lmljsi.jpg


    _
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 1, 2015 #2

    berkeman

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Pretty pictures. Have you built a scale model yet? How well does it fly?
     
  4. Oct 1, 2015 #3
    I am a 2d artist but not a 3d modeller, so this is at the beginning stages. I wanted to get the idea out there for if anyone wanted to take it further [a tech uni, global car manufacturer or something?], and just because i like sci-fi stuff, and hope one day something like this will be made.

    Apart from helicopters with 4 blades at the corners i haven’t seen much out there, and such vehicles would have similar issues to conventional helicopters.
     
  5. Oct 1, 2015 #4

    berkeman

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Last edited by a moderator: May 7, 2017
  6. Oct 1, 2015 #5
    Yes and lockhead have a large annular double rotating wing for vtol... The blog link is closed now so i cant linky to it sry

    they are not flying cars though, or anything like. I think my idea is closer?

    edit; not in terms of similar usage. you couldn't park it outside your house and take off/land etc with any of those.
     
  7. Oct 1, 2015 #6

    berkeman

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    With the tilt-rotor concept you can. Especially the versions that fold the tilt-rotor assemblies into the body of the car when on the ground.

    Here is a recent CNN article surveying current flying car efforts: http://money.cnn.com/2015/05/18/luxury/flying-cars-aeromobil/index.html

    :smile:
     
  8. Oct 1, 2015 #7
    Well i still think the neighbours would complain if you had those dangerous blades, and immense winds from thrust momentum based systems blowing their gnomes over lol.

    Seriously though i think they present similar issues to helicopters, so i would ask if you think my system would be an upgrade? And which you would prefer to use e.g. If you were a business person who currently uses helicopters, wouldn’t you prefer these quieter and less windy and much safer and all round more civilised machines?


    If you saw a real one, wouldn’t you choose it over any of those others? ...both practically and aesthetically.
     
  9. Oct 1, 2015 #8

    berkeman

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    The better looking designs use ducted fans, so the blades are not exposed. And yes, you'll want to pull into an open space like a parking lot before firing up the VTOL...
     
  10. Oct 1, 2015 #9
    Hmm well maybe, but i cant see them getting permissions for that, except perhaps dedicated areas. They could add a micro gauss for better safety around families perhaps.


    Still the question remains as to weather or not my machine is superior, and possibly more efficient? VTOL would probably be the same ~ it takes the same amount of work to do the same job weather we use propellers [thrust momentum system] or wing-mesh [multi-lift system]. However, in flight i would envision my design to have the edge on efficiency, because its essentially flying more like an aircraft, and the speed of rotation could be reduced relative to the speed of movement through the air.


    My system would be...


    1.Quieter [thrust momentum is noisy].

    2.Safer.

    3.More efficient.

    4.Has greater utility in terms of landing/taking off.

    5.Far less windy.

    6.Better aesthetics, and design potential.


    Is generally an upgrade to bladed systems?
     
  11. Oct 1, 2015 #10

    cjl

    User Avatar

    No matter how you make lift, you're going to have a large amount of downwash. You've basically just invented a helicopter with enclosed rotors, and your small disk area (and high disk loading) would mean that the downwash velocity would be very high, resulting in a large amount of noise and disturbance to the area beneath the craft. If you want to decrease the downwash from a vertical takeoff and landing vehicle, you need to dramatically decrease the disk loading, which means increasing the diameter of your rotors (a lot).
     
  12. Oct 1, 2015 #11

    berkeman

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    TBH, I didn't understand what you were trying to say about your blade design. How could it be "far less windy" while producing the same downward thrust? You still need to move the same amount of air to get the same thrust...
     
  13. Oct 1, 2015 #12

    Mech_Engineer

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Amorphos_b, I think your concept might have a fatal flaw... If I understand correctly, you're claiming to use a set of enclosed "wing-mesh disc" to generate lift, but it cannot generate lift without having net downward air flow like a ducted fan. In your concept you have it enclosed; this would result in the disc's net upward force being cancelled by a net downward force of the air hitting the bottom of the enclosure. In other words, it can't work; you'll just mix air in the enclosed space.

    Additionally, how realistic do you really think it is to use "artificial black diamond using my carbon manifestor invention"? Sounds pretty out there to me...
     
  14. Oct 1, 2015 #13

    cjl

    User Avatar

    This isn't quite true - you need the same momentum change to get the same thrust. You can achieve this by affecting a very small amount of air with a very large change in velocity (inefficient and loud) or by affecting a very large amount of air with a relatively small change in velocity. You'll definitely end up with significant downwash no matter what if you're lifting something the size of a car though.
     
  15. Oct 1, 2015 #14
    Cjl


    I figured that the downwash is mostly caused by thrust momentum. This system is more of a lifting up, rather than a downwards force pushing against the air. The essential principle in lift [especially at the small scale] is the difference between the the lines i.e. The comparative difference between the upper and lower wing surface. This difference draws the object upward relative to that, where in larger wings that creates a vortex in the air to produce lift, what is also occurring is an energy transferral of lateral momentum and force relative to the arrangement of wings/forces. I envision this as a mass of arrows denoting the energy/momentum movements of the system, and they [arrows showing forces] are not all directly downwards, many of them would be lateral divided by slight up/down small localised movements ~ same as with bird flight.


    I would wager that if someone built this, there would be a significant difference in air moving downwards to thrust momentum [bladed] systems. As such a device has yet to be tested, i would also wager that the maths would change upon measuring the actual differences.


    Why would it be much different to an aircraft which is noticeably less windy than helicopters? Essentially this is just wings in an unusual arrangement.


    Consider how a spinning Frisbee floats without much down-force due to the motion of the spinning action.


    Berkeman


    It is not producing the same downwards thrust? Wing lift isn’t the same as thrust momentum. See above.


    Mech engineer


    Do you really think i would make such a childish and ridiculous mistake as expecting enclosed wings to work!!!


    The semi-transparent part of the wing-mesh pod, is a honeycomb gauss, thus allowing airflow. The base of the pod is the same but you cant see it on the image of course.


    _
     
  16. Oct 1, 2015 #15

    berkeman

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    This is starting to sound like pseudo-science. The thread will not remain open very long if you insist on making statements like this...
     
  17. Oct 1, 2015 #16
    also consider the relative lightness of a craft made of black diamond.
     
  18. Oct 1, 2015 #17

    berkeman

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    That's not helping your cause...
     
  19. Oct 1, 2015 #18
    sorry, I was trying to say how different the forces would be working.
     
  20. Oct 1, 2015 #19

    cjl

    User Avatar

    Aircraft don't seem to produce as much downwash as helicopters because of two factors:

    1) They aren't staying in place, so the downwash is not felt in a single location
    2) They affect an ENORMOUS amount of air. A fully loaded 747 needs about a million pounds of lift force to stay aloft. This means that the mass flux of the air it affects multiplied by the downwash velocity must be approximately a million pounds (4.45 million newtons). However, at the stall speed of a fully loaded 747, it is traveling about 77 meters per second. With a wingspan of 65 meters, and assuming the wing itself is affecting a region of air approximately 20 meters thick (not a horrendous assumption for now, though this is obviously the biggest fudge factor in this whole calculation), the aircraft is affecting a volume of air equal to 100 thousand cubic meters per second. Since sea level air has a density of about 1.25 kg/m3, the mass of air affected per second is 125 metric tons. To generate 4.45 million newtons of lift with 125 metric tons of mass flow per second, the 747 is generating a downwash velocity of about 36 meters per second. This is pretty substantial, but probably not the main thing you'll be paying attention to if a 747 flies by at a low altitude.

    No matter how you generate lift, you can't get around the generation of downwash. As I said, you can reduce the velocity of the downwash (and the power required) by increasing the mass flow rate of the air affected - aircraft do this by having a larger wingspan or flying faster, and helicopters can do this by increasing the total rotor area. You can't escape this though.
     
  21. Oct 1, 2015 #20

    cjl

    User Avatar

    A frisbee doesn't make much downwash because it doesn't weigh very much. The spinning isn't helping the lift, it merely makes the frisbee's orientation stable.

    Wing lift is absolutely due to the momentum change of the air. Helicopters don't use any fundamentally different principle from aircraft wings.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: My idea for a flying car...
  1. Flying car (Replies: 6)

  2. Race car safety idea (Replies: 19)

Loading...