Full-on Hover Mode Time Machine

[Dangermouse]

Who’s taken the final step and converted their car to hover-mode?
Is it permanent/semi-permanent?
How is it done?

http://dmctalk.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=35339&d=1436204698



Seen at Montreal Comic-Con recently.

[Kane]

Bruce Coloumbe was the only one I knew who did the hover conversions. His was just a set of half tires that had a hook that hang on the existing tire. It can only be used when the car is stationary. This one, however, does not look like his and looks like the existing tire is not there anymore. I would also be very interested to know how they did it. I would love to do a hover conversion on my time machine if it meant that I could actually drive in hover mode.

[davidc89]

If I had to guess it would be on some sort of jack. It looks as though there is a plate under the front end, behind the front tire. As a hobby magician I appreciate when people come up with these sort of illusions.

[Dangermouse]

I'm not sure that it is an illusion.

I have seen Pictures of Bruce's and its a clever way to produce the effect.

The one in Brazil is different also as the wheels move from vertical to horizontal But it is presumably non- drivable also.

[davidc89]

I understand what you are getting at. It has some way of being held up, giving the illusion of hovering. Having the wheels go from vertical to horizontal definitely gives the effect way more realism and really wouldn't be overly difficult. I would have to see it can't really tell from the photos.

[Dangermouse]

The one is Brazil that I am referring to is this one:

http://dmctalk.org/showthread.php?10935-Who-s-TM-is-down-in-Brazil

a different set up, with hydraulics/pneumatics.




*Who's/whose!!!!! I did it again didn't I?:8ball:

[Rich W]

Since there appears to be hydraulics/pneumatics thrown into the mix (in a non-driving display),
I guess I should include my full-scale BTTF Prop Car Replica in the list of hover conversions.

My hover-mode was initially installed on the BTTF Prop Car Replica back in 2004 before DCS 2004
and although I did not complete the "elevation" mods and install the linear actuators to automate,
I was able to display the BTTF Prop Car Replica on stands and manually transition it to hover mode.

My BTTF Prop Car Replica currently does not steer with the front wheels, due to the hinged spindles.
Go-Jacks are used under the wheels to steer and position the vehicle for display and also to position
the vehicle, to be placed back in an enclosed trailer or back on an open car trailer, for transport.

35348

35349

35350

35351

[Timebender]

If I had to guess it would be on some sort of jack. It looks as though there is a plate under the front end, behind the front tire. As a hobby magician I appreciate when people come up with these sort of illusions.

+1

[Timebender]

I'm not sure that it is an illusion.

I have seen Pictures of Bruce's and its a clever way to produce the effect.

The one in Brazil is different also as the wheels move from vertical to horizontal But it is presumably non- drivable also.
The one in Brazil was cool in that it had the wheels that flipped out, but you could see it was on a motion simulator type of platform covered in a black curtain - it seemed very much like the kiddie rides that used to be at the mall.

Bruce's is slick, especially at night as you can't see (well, sort of can't) the black covers over the wheels.

[Timebender]

I understand what you are getting at. It has some way of being held up, giving the illusion of hovering. Having the wheels go from vertical to horizontal definitely gives the effect way more realism and really wouldn't be overly difficult. I would have to see it can't really tell from the photos.

Aside from getting some form of thrust through the wheels in hover mode (easy), and the wheels going from road to hover mode (easy), it's getting the rear wheels to connect/disconnect from the axles and then be able to reconnect - which is probably easy as well, but I'm stuck at that point.

I did come up with a basic solution to a real-world flying DeLorean using state-of-the-art/current tech, which is similar to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter design.

Any mechanical engineers with a degree or those who are "home schooled" - if you have thoughts on this as their are a couple places I'm stuck, one being the above mentioned axle issue - is the pass-through differential.

So, in this case the engine is in the front of the car (it's been done as we know). It's connected to a drive-shaft which goes into a special differential - in drive mode it turns the back axles. In fly mode, it drives another smaller drive-shaft in the back of it, which in turn drives two turbines in opposite directions. The back louvers rotate to a vertical position to allow maximum airflow as well as keep from getting sucked down.

For takeoff, compressed air from the turbines is passed through a channel and outlets along the bottom of the car, strategically placed mainly for lift and balance.
Once enough height is reached for hover conversion (wheels out), the wheels turn out, and then airflow is redirected to the wheels, which have rounded caps behind them, and are the same diameter as the DeLorean rims. The air from there is then "cleaned up" per se, due to the slotted design of the rims (think wind tunnel effect), thus providing more thrust with less energy. Motion and direction is then controlled by each individual valve closing and opening enough - similar to how quadcopters operate by slowing down or speeding up the propellers.

And that's pretty much it in a nutshell.
And now this is of public record - if anyone wants to add to it, improve upon it or figure out how to make this work, please feel free to comment and help make it better.

And I'm willing to donate my DeLorean to the cause, as it's already been modded with a Corvette 350 engine.

[davidc89]

Just as a thought, I was thinking hub less wheels. They are obviously driven by something, but it may be easier to disconnect them and go in to hover mode. I don't really know how they are driven, but just an idea.

[Timebender]

I was thinking the same thing this morning - they have electric motorized rims - though then you'd lose the DeLorean rims. You could probably adapt an electric hub motor to the middle in place of the brakes - it could both provide locomotion as well as brakes (and then no more needing to change brake pads - ever). Wonder if there's a motor you could attach to the brake rotors instead...

[Starglider]

I was thinking the same thing this morning - they have electric motorized rims - though then you'd lose the DeLorean rims. You could probably adapt an electric hub motor to the middle in place of the brakes - it could both provide locomotion as well as brakes (and then no more needing to change brake pads - ever). Wonder if there's a motor you could attach to the brake rotors instead...

Electric vehicles still have mechanical brakes. The rate at which you can extract kinetic energy via regenerative or dynamic braking (using the motor as a generator) is fairly limited. Trying to actively brake by running the motor 'in reverse' is a bad idea because it rapidly heats the motor coils. The service live of the brake pads on a Tesla is about 100K miles; much better than purely mechanical brakes, but not 'forever'.

[Starglider]

And that's pretty much it in a nutshell.

There are massive control challenges and the power output required for a ducted fan solution is on the order of 2000 HP, continuous: if it ever becomes non-continuous you crash. This is why the Moller SkyCar project has been going for 20 years with still no untethered flight demonstration, and that uses a custom lightweight airframe and redundant rotary engines.

[Timebender]

There are massive control challenges and the power output required for a ducted fan solution is on the order of 2000 HP, continuous: if it ever becomes non-continuous you crash. This is why the Moller SkyCar project has been going for 20 years with still no untethered flight demonstration, and that uses a custom lightweight airframe and redundant rotary engines.

Yes I know- my stuff is all theory. If the turbines don't provide continuous thrust, then we pop a parachute. Also, I'd switch out the frame for one made of carbon fiber, and skins for aircraft aluminum.

If geared right, let's say you're using a smaller turbo charged engine in front, to the drive shaft to the turbines then it's not so much a case of engine HP output, but more about getting the fans to spin fast enough, which could be done through a gearbox that essentially increases rpm's to the fans. Duct those to the rims (which act as vanes to clean up the air flow even more) and I think, in theory, you could make this work.

[Starglider]

Yes I know- my stuff is all theory. If the turbines don't provide continuous thrust, then we pop a parachute.

The minimum height for a ballistic airframe parachute to work is 250 feet. This will not help you for any of the most dangerous stages of flight, where you are most likely to lose control, have a mechanical failure or enter vortex ring state. Honestly ejector seats would work better.


Also, I'd switch out the frame for one made of carbon fiber, and skins for aircraft aluminum.

Building a VTOL that is merely shaped like a DeLorean is slightly easier than trying to convert one, but this is still much harder than a properly shaped airframe which is itself a task so hard that no one has been able to build one yet (Moller demonstrating how much investment and engineering talent you can burn up trying).


If geared right, let's say you're using a smaller turbo charged engine in front

Then the weight distribution would be completely off.


to the drive shaft to the turbines then it's not so much a case of engine HP output, but more about getting the fans to spin fast enough, which could be done through a gearbox that essentially increases rpm's to the fans.

What do you think you need to make fans spin? Moving air takes horsepower. Thrust engines get less efficient the smaller the nozzle is, because it forces you to use more exhaust velocity to make up the necessary force, and due to k = mv^2 that means you use more power to generate the same thrust. This is why helicopters use big rotors not tiny fans; it is much more energy efficient, and they still have engines rated >500 hp. The only reason light aircraft can fly with relatively low powered engines is that the wing acts as a huge thrust multiplier, causing a large amount of air to experience a small downward velocity change. Aircraft that can hover on their propellors (e.g. a few stunt aircraft) need an order of magnitude better power-to-weight ratio than typical light aircraft because direct thrust is so much less power efficient.

The Moller M400 needs 700 hp just to hover in ground effect, and that is a 1000kg vehicle with twice the intake area you are proposing.


Duct those to the rims (which act as vanes to clean up the air flow even more)

That will not 'clean up the air flow' (which is not necessary at these pressure ratios), rather it will add lots of parasitic drag and increase the power requirements even more. The 1957 Hiller flying platform needed 80 HP to hover for a 250kg vehicle, but that was a direct fan with again more than twice the intake and exhaust area you are proposing, and no power-sapping ducting.


I think, in theory, you could make this work.

You think that because you are hopelessly optimistic and haven't done any actual calculations. The fact that many many really talented aerospace engineers have failed to make a 'flying car' type vehicle for the last sixty years despite huge funding and not having the major restriction of making it look like a DeLorean should be telling.

[Timebender]

You think that because you are hopelessly optimistic and haven't done any actual calculations. The fact that many many really talented aerospace engineers have failed to make a 'flying car' type vehicle for the last sixty years despite huge funding and not having the major restriction of making it look like a DeLorean should be telling.

Optimistic, yes. Many many really talented aerospace engineers is great, yet not a single one has cracked it. Only takes one person who thinks completely differently to do so.

Hopelessly so, maybe. Maybe not. Some of the best ideas and solutions come from people who aren't "trained" or professionally educated in a certain area. Their are dreamers who somehow beat the "real world data" and make things come true. Some of the best discoveries are from non-engineers (or I should say people who didn't major in engineering) who aren't stuck in the data sets and "what works as far as we know" mentality. James Cameron has developed one of the best subs for going deeper than any other submarine before him along with a friend and "engineer" - who made most of the materials based on things he found at automotive stores and ideas from his garage before moving into a real facility alongside some special effects folks.

http://www.popsci.com/article/technology/ballad-ron-allum-0

Of note:
Ron Allum, a 65-year-old Australian broadcast technician, co-designed and built the Deepsea Challenger despite having no background in mechanical engineering, no qualifications in oceanic science, and no education beyond a trade-school certificate.

Btw I have 6 patents in something I had no college education from (I was a film student who switched to industrial design and architecture, and didn't finish) and were discovered mainly by looking at something from a very non-traditional perspective, and are now in the hands of Intel.

I worked alongside some of the most amazingly bright people at an R&D think tank, comprised of people from the special effects industry taking their craft and applying it to real world problems. Almost all had no degrees in engineering. They were just good at figuring stuff out from a different perspective.


I believe it can be done. And that's good enough for me.


End of conversation.

[Kane]

End of conversation.

Exactly. I'll have to remind myself to ignore your posts after this.

[aotmfilms]

Aside from getting some form of thrust through the wheels in hover mode (easy), and the wheels going from road to hover mode (easy), it's getting the rear wheels to connect/disconnect from the axles and then be able to reconnect - which is probably easy as well, but I'm stuck at that point.

I did come up with a basic solution to a real-world flying DeLorean using state-of-the-art/current tech, which is similar to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter design.

Any mechanical engineers with a degree or those who are "home schooled" - if you have thoughts on this as their are a couple places I'm stuck, one being the above mentioned axle issue - is the pass-through differential.

So, in this case the engine is in the front of the car (it's been done as we know). It's connected to a drive-shaft which goes into a special differential - in drive mode it turns the back axles. In fly mode, it drives another smaller drive-shaft in the back of it, which in turn drives two turbines in opposite directions. The back louvers rotate to a vertical position to allow maximum airflow as well as keep from getting sucked down.

For takeoff, compressed air from the turbines is passed through a channel and outlets along the bottom of the car, strategically placed mainly for lift and balance.
Once enough height is reached for hover conversion (wheels out), the wheels turn out, and then airflow is redirected to the wheels, which have rounded caps behind them, and are the same diameter as the DeLorean rims. The air from there is then "cleaned up" per se, due to the slotted design of the rims (think wind tunnel effect), thus providing more thrust with less energy. Motion and direction is then controlled by each individual valve closing and opening enough - similar to how quadcopters operate by slowing down or speeding up the propellers.

And that's pretty much it in a nutshell.
And now this is of public record - if anyone wants to add to it, improve upon it or figure out how to make this work, please feel free to comment and help make it better.

And I'm willing to donate my DeLorean to the cause, as it's already been modded with a Corvette 350 engine.

I would think that it would need an additional engine and go old school, aka Harrier technology that the Brits used. or put a bigger engine in place of the Corvette. The issue would be to have the tires become the nozzles as well. If I had a cool million available I would research it. Parts for what you are asking wouldn't be hard to come by for aging equipment such as the US or British versions of the harrier design.

[aotmfilms]

Yes I know- my stuff is all theory. If the turbines don't provide continuous thrust, then we pop a parachute. Also, I'd switch out the frame for one made of carbon fiber, and skins for aircraft aluminum.

If geared right, let's say you're using a smaller turbo charged engine in front, to the drive shaft to the turbines then it's not so much a case of engine HP output, but more about getting the fans to spin fast enough, which could be done through a gearbox that essentially increases rpm's to the fans. Duct those to the rims (which act as vanes to clean up the air flow even more) and I think, in theory, you could make this work.

I would want two engines, 1,000 hp each fore and aft to control the nozzles, and some sort of redundancy just incase one fails so that you could atleast power rotor down similar to that of a helicopter.

[aotmfilms]

The minimum height for a ballistic airframe parachute to work is 250 feet. This will not help you for any of the most dangerous stages of flight, where you are most likely to lose control, have a mechanical failure or enter vortex ring state. Honestly ejector seats would work better.



Building a VTOL that is merely shaped like a DeLorean is slightly easier than trying to convert one, but this is still much harder than a properly shaped airframe which is itself a task so hard that no one has been able to build one yet (Moller demonstrating how much investment and engineering talent you can burn up trying).



Then the weight distribution would be completely off.



What do you think you need to make fans spin? Moving air takes horsepower. Thrust engines get less efficient the smaller the nozzle is, because it forces you to use more exhaust velocity to make up the necessary force, and due to k = mv^2 that means you use more power to generate the same thrust. This is why helicopters use big rotors not tiny fans; it is much more energy efficient, and they still have engines rated >500 hp. The only reason light aircraft can fly with relatively low powered engines is that the wing acts as a huge thrust multiplier, causing a large amount of air to experience a small downward velocity change. Aircraft that can hover on their propellors (e.g. a few stunt aircraft) need an order of magnitude better power-to-weight ratio than typical light aircraft because direct thrust is so much less power efficient.

The Moller M400 needs 700 hp just to hover in ground effect, and that is a 1000kg vehicle with twice the intake area you are proposing.



That will not 'clean up the air flow' (which is not necessary at these pressure ratios), rather it will add lots of parasitic drag and increase the power requirements even more. The 1957 Hiller flying platform needed 80 HP to hover for a 250kg vehicle, but that was a direct fan with again more than twice the intake and exhaust area you are proposing, and no power-sapping ducting.



You think that because you are hopelessly optimistic and haven't done any actual calculations. The fact that many many really talented aerospace engineers have failed to make a 'flying car' type vehicle for the last sixty years despite huge funding and not having the major restriction of making it look like a DeLorean should be telling.

You cannot tell me with GM's or Ford's resources that a "Flying Car" couldn't atleast get made. Now, it seeing mass production is another thing but IMO the big 3 have the tech to make a "Flying D" a reality.

[Timebender]

I would think that it would need an additional engine and go old school, aka Harrier technology that the Brits used. or put a bigger engine in place of the Corvette. The issue would be to have the tires become the nozzles as well. If I had a cool million available I would research it. Parts for what you are asking wouldn't be hard to come by for aging equipment such as the US or British versions of the harrier design.

That's basically the idea I had, aside from it having two engines, which is a good idea like you said for redundancy, but then where would engine 2 go, being the whole back engine bay would be filled with the F35 style turbines (vs. harrier design)?

[aotmfilms]

That's basically the idea I had, aside from it having two engines, which is a good idea like you said for redundancy, but then where would engine 2 go, being the whole back engine bay would be filled with the F35 style turbines (vs. harrier design)?

Engine would have to be where the luggage is at unfortunately. Now where we would put the fuel is anybody's guess. I could mock something up in 3d. I don't know how it would get more than 5 or 10 feet off of the ground due to the power/fuel requirements but if you could get the frame light enough....

Atleast I could visualize it for us. Concept-wise but like the other guy said, the power/fuel requirements, not to mention safety, would only allow this "car/D/whatever" to get about 5 to 10 feet in the air safely, at least initially.

Transistioning to ground vehicle would be something else though....I'd have it land on its nozzles or have retractable landing gear, then transistion the tires to "road mode".

--Doug

[Timebender]

Engine would have to be where the luggage is at unfortunately. Now where we would put the fuel is anybody's guess. I could mock something up in 3d. I don't know how it would get more than 5 or 10 feet off of the ground due to the power/fuel requirements but if you could get the frame light enough....

Atleast I could visualize it for us. Concept-wise but like the other guy said, the power/fuel requirements, not to mention safety, would only allow this "car/D/whatever" to get about 5 to 10 feet in the air safely, at least initially.

Transistioning to ground vehicle would be something else though....I'd have it land on its nozzles or have retractable landing gear, then transistion the tires to "road mode".

--Doug
That was my idea (I think I had that in my first post), with the engine in front. It's been done before on a dual engine DeLorean. The question was where would you put the second engine, as the engine bay in the back would be taken up by the fans.
As I went out to lunch it occurred to me that you might be able to put two 4 cylinder, turbo-charged engines in front side by side (running lengthwise), hooked up to the one transmission. If one fails, you might have just enough power for a safe landing, as well as be able to drive away.

Fuel tank could be moved under the body around where the bell-housing currently is on both sides so it goes under the parcel shelf. Someone figured it out for the two-engine DeLorean. If you make the frame a composite (carbon fiber for strength) and the skins out of aircraft aluminum, then you could shed quite a bit of weight.

http://jalopnik.com/5515205/dual-engine-delorean-up-for-single-engine-sale

[Timebender]

Another idea for the engines would be two Honda 1835cc modified Valkyrie/Goldwing engines side by side. I have this on my Honda Rune, a 900 pound bike on it's own, and even at 70mph, with a 240 pound rider (me), can take off like a shot in 5th gear.

The DeLorean weighs 2800 pounds. Go to a composite frame, replace the SS with aircraft aluminum skins, and replace the glass (glass is very heavy btw) with aircraft Lexan windows. You'd probably be, as a guess, down to 1200 pounds, but that's a rough guess.

[Starglider]

You cannot tell me with GM's or Ford's resources that a "Flying Car" couldn't atleast get made. Now, it seeing mass production is another thing but IMO the big 3 have the tech to make a "Flying D" a reality.

This argument makes no sense. Physics does not care how much money you have. It does not care how much you believe. The aerodynamics of hovering vehicles is fairly well understood and comes down to thrust-to-weight, drag, rotor area, center of gravity, control torque, damping and so on. Even back-of-napkin engineering calculations on whether something will actually work are much more relevant than how well known the developer is or your level of personal faith. Aside from anything else it demonstrates that whoever wants to do the thing is an actual engineer with any chance of building something that works.

GM and Ford do not have aerospace talent so no they are not equipped to make a flying car. They could subcontract of course, if they were prepared to invest billions in an extremely risky R&D for a luxury product. The current state of the art in fast VTOLs is pretty much this Boeing project;

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/l7gkbhbddivmu5djyn0b.jpg

So a flying car in the sense of a VTOL that looks roughly like that is almost certainly possible, although expensive. Note that it does not look anything like a DeLorean; the relatively large fan area and lack of power sapping ducting is absolutely critical for achieving useful thrust-to-weight.

[aotmfilms]

I hate to burst your bubble but this was just from TWO DAYS ago. So a flying D COULD be possible.

http://www.cnet.com/news/terrafugia-unveils-new-tf-x-flying-car-design/

35642

This was just from a Google search of "Flying Car", it took me approximately 10 secs to find. So now tell me it's going to take Billions and that the Big 3 couldn't do it? :thankyou:

Here is a video. It is purported that it is more like a plane than a car but their getting there:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Yn2uyQJ1jc]

IMO we are in the early days of the wright brothers here but give it time and about another 50 years. With the Big 3, we would be about 10 years off.

[Starglider]

It is purported that it is more like a plane than a car but their getting there:

It is a light aircraft with folding wings. You drive it to an airfield and take off like a normal plane. These things have been around since the 1950s, but they have never been very popular because they are awkward compromise that sucks as both a car and a plane. Regardless this is in no way relevant to anything with a 'hover mode'; this kind of design will always need a large wingspan, a relatively high stall speed and a runway. Similarly there have been attempts to make helicopters that can be used as cars; it's possible but very impractical. Neither of these designs is anything like the flying cars envisioned in Back to the Future. Those used antigravity for a good reason; jet thrust as the main lift source is completely implausible for something that closely resembles a road car. Unfortunately to date there has been no credible indication that antigravity is physically possible.

[DMC5180]

Neither of these designs is anything like the flying cars envisioned in Back to the Future. Those used antigravity for a good reason; jet thrust as the main lift source is completely implausible for something that closely resembles a road car. Unfortunately to date there has been no credible indication that antigravity is physically possible.

+1

But it's always fun to dream right :-)

You seem well versed in all things aeronautical. Fwiw I work in the aviation field myself, R&D at Cirrus Aircraft.

[aotmfilms]

It is a light aircraft with folding wings. You drive it to an airfield and take off like a normal plane. These things have been around since the 1950s, but they have never been very popular because they are awkward compromise that sucks as both a car and a plane. Regardless this is in no way relevant to anything with a 'hover mode'; this kind of design will always need a large wingspan, a relatively high stall speed and a runway. Similarly there have been attempts to make helicopters that can be used as cars; it's possible but very impractical. Neither of these designs is anything like the flying cars envisioned in Back to the Future. Those used antigravity for a good reason; jet thrust as the main lift source is completely implausible for something that closely resembles a road car. Unfortunately to date there has been no credible indication that antigravity is physically possible.

Well it seems that some progress has been made in that area as well....http://gizadeathstar.com/2014/01/fringe-science-boeing-admits-anti-gravity-work/

But the bottom line here is what Mr. Cook's article suggests, and that is, that Russia, despite all public denials about pseudo-science and so on connected with Kozyrev's and his followers' work, is still conducting secret research into it, and if Podkletnov's assertions as revealed in this article are true, doing so on a large scale and developing first generation(or later) practical devices.

And finally, and most obviously, I hope you caught the subtle and implied message in the article: Russia is doing practical anti-gravity research, and they are ahead of us and we need to catch up fast....


Like I said, I think we are 10 to 50 years off. 10 to build a prototype and 50 to put it into production. We may or may not see it but your kids will.

Back in the day "They" said that breaking the sound barrier was impossible and that the earth was flat...well we know what happened :)

--Doug

[Starglider]

gizadeathstar.com

If you're linking to crank web sites, you've effectively conceeded the argument. That exact same 'Russians have secret antigravity' story has been doing the rounds on the Internet since at least the mid 90s. I said 'no credible indication' because like cold fusion, perpetual motion, healing crystals and cars that run on tap water, cranks have been claiming to invent antigravity several times a year for the last century. Obviously it would be great if we could control gravity or inertia, or create force without using thrusters, but actual qualified scientists and engineers have been researching these ideas for a century as well and as yet nothing reproducable has turned up. That's not to say that it is known to impossible, just that so far there is no indication that it can be done. Honestly if you're relying on antigravity you might as well say that you're going to build a working time machine, because there's roughly the same amount of scientific and engineering basis for it.


Back in the day "They" said that breaking the sound barrier was impossible

Supersonic motion was known to be physically possible before aircraft were invented because artillery shells were already supersonic. The question was whether it was possible to build a practical supersonic aircraft; the structural strength and thrust-to-drag ratio issues were tough but relatively straightforward problems. The real unknown was the aerodynamics; solving the instabilities and finding a workable control scheme. Lacking powerful computer models in the 1940s, the only solution was subscale wind tunnel models, and building research aircraft until something worked. Very few actual engineers or scientists said it was 'impossible'; only sensational journalists.

Compact VTOLs are not in that category; the science and engineering is well understood and we can establish what can and can't work with relatively straightforward maths (and for borderline cases, computer modelling). Antigravity isn't in that category either; meteors and rifle bullets were supersonic before we tried to build supersonic aircraft, but antigravity has never been observed anywhere in nature or human endeavour. Supersonic flight was a logical extrapolation of subsonic flight; increase the thrust or the power in the wind tunnel, then search for solutions to the resulting problems. Antigravity is not a logical extension of anything else we can do; we literally don't know how to get started (magnetic levitation is a real thing of course but unrelated to this problem). We can't even build a computer model, because we have no idea if the phenomenon even exists.

In short, analogies can be useful for explaining things, but sloppy ones are just misleading.

[aotmfilms]

If you're linking to crank web sites, you've effectively conceeded the argument. That exact same 'Russians have secret antigravity' story has been doing the rounds on the Internet since at least the mid 90s. I said 'no credible indication' because like cold fusion, perpetual motion, healing crystals and cars that run on tap water, cranks have been claiming to invent antigravity several times a year for the last century. Obviously it would be great if we could control gravity or inertia, or create force without using thrusters, but actual qualified scientists and engineers have been researching these ideas for a century as well and as yet nothing reproducable has turned up. That's not to say that it is known to impossible, just that so far there is no indication that it can be done. Honestly if you're relying on antigravity you might as well say that you're going to build a working time machine, because there's roughly the same amount of scientific and engineering basis for it.



Supersonic motion was known to be physically possible before aircraft were invented because artillery shells were already supersonic. The question was whether it was possible to build a practical supersonic aircraft; the structural strength and thrust-to-drag ratio issues were tough but relatively straightforward problems. The real unknown was the aerodynamics; solving the instabilities and finding a workable control scheme. Lacking powerful computer models in the 1940s, the only solution was subscale wind tunnel models, and building research aircraft until something worked. Very few actual engineers or scientists said it was 'impossible'; only sensational journalists.

Compact VTOLs are not in that category; the science and engineering is well understood and we can establish what can and can't work with relatively straightforward maths (and for borderline cases, computer modelling). Antigravity isn't in that category either; meteors and rifle bullets were supersonic before we tried to build supersonic aircraft, but antigravity has never been observed anywhere in nature or human endeavour. Supersonic flight was a logical extrapolation of subsonic flight; increase the thrust or the power in the wind tunnel, then search for solutions to the resulting problems. Antigravity is not a logical extension of anything else we can do; we literally don't know how to get started (magnetic levitation is a real thing of course but unrelated to this problem). We can't even build a computer model, because we have no idea if the phenomenon even exists.

In short, analogies can be useful for explaining things, but sloppy ones are just misleading.

Not to get into an arguement but as previously stated I did a generic Google search. Also two magnets close in proximity are a form of antigravity. (think that hoverboard gizmo that they are selling for 10k or more). For all of your "science" have you ever considered that if you could concentrate a "nozzle" that could match or exceed the earth's gravitational pull in that specific area and exceed it that you would have Anti grav?? All that we would need is for that to kick in to allow some sort of "Hover mode" in order to transition from ground mode to flight mode. Google search that hoverboard. Like I said the tech is there, only 10 to 50 more years. BTW I work for TARDEC and if timetravel or hover conversion were possible, we would be the one to invent it so I do kindof know what I am talking about..... (kind of nice to have a pretty much unlimited budget and some of the best minds on the planet working on stuff :) )

[aotmfilms]

http://hendohover.com/

Hendo Hoverboard. Now do the same thing for a D with obviously massive power requirements :(( and what to you get? Antigrav....

Our public facing website:

http://www.army.mil/tardec

Like I said, this is all rhetorical, but even our modern day appliances started out as a discussion of "What If's"? So this discussion is welcome!

Cheers!:cheers:

[Timebender]

BTW I work for TARDEC and if timetravel or hover conversion were possible, we would be the one to invent it so I do kindof know what I am talking about..... (kind of nice to have a pretty much unlimited budget and some of the best minds on the planet working on stuff :) )

I used to work at Applied Minds, an R&D Thinktank in LA.

[Dangermouse]

I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night...



Even if it worked as advertized, can you imagine the carnage in the sky if we let the sort of people who can't operate a vehicle in 2 dimensions loose with one that requires 3D skills.

[Timebender]

I think if we let cars fly in numbers, there would be a system in place to keep them all going where they need to go via autopilot- so there'd be no crashes hopefully. Tell the car where you want to go, it takes off, flies you there, and lands automatically- which is tied into an overall traffic control system. I was amazed one time I flew in a very small chopper- when we hit our cruise elevation you could see "lanes" other aircraft were taking based on the streets below us.

[Parzval]

Even if it worked as advertized, can you imagine the carnage in the sky if we let the sort of people who can't operate a vehicle in 2 dimensions loose with one that requires 3D skills.

Yeah, this.

Not to mention what happens when you get a mechanical break down! :eek: Don't get me wrong, I want to fly... but other drivers scare me down here on the ground! :(

[MartyP]

Who’s taken the final step and converted their car to hover-mode?
Is it permanent/semi-permanent?
How is it done?

http://dmctalk.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=35339&d=1436204698



Seen at Montreal Comic-Con recently.

Hi ! This one belongs to a friend of mine in Montreal. It's an early Vin with the flap hood, auto. and black interior.

It's our only Time Machine in Quebec. The hover mode effect was created about 2 years ago by an other owner of an original Delorean. But it's a fix display, you have to take the wheels of and install this kit.

[aotmfilms]

I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night...



Even if it worked as advertized, can you imagine the carnage in the sky if we let the sort of people who can't operate a vehicle in 2 dimensions loose with one that requires 3D skills.

Oh I agree. But many people invented things that were not practical. Example: Products on infomericals. I think the only thing that would stop flying cars would be the insurance industry. Could you imagine the car insurance prices?

--Doug