flying racing cars

[MigL]

8 hours ago, iNow said:

If a track could be built to allow this, Formula 1 cars generate so much down force that they could, in fact, drive upside down once at speed

Not sure that's actually true, but haven't really investigated.
 Although the wings provide enough downforce for the cars to corner at >>1g.
Every year new rules are introduced to keep F1 cars from going too fast, and control of bottom airflow is one way.
( I still remember when the wood plank bottoms were introduced for that reason )

The last race car which actually produced a vacuum underneath, courtesy of 2 rear fans and lexan skirts was the Chaparral 2J.
It competed in the Can-Am series for one season, where its ability to produce 1.5 g downforce allowed it to totally dominate in 1970.
For that reason it was outlawed in subsequent seasons.

Edit
Apparently true; looked it up.
They can produce 1 g of downforce at speeds as low ass 150 km/hr.
And much greater at higher speeds.

 

Edited November 3, 2020 by MigL

[IsaacAsimov]

1 hour ago, Ghideon said:

No, at east not yet.

Side note: The opening post reminds me of an old documentary* "The Devil at Your Heels". A driver uses a rocket powered Lincoln, with tiny wings/spoilers, to attempt a 1 mile jump. Phi's comment "Sort of a one-off flight, right, with no way to turn or land?" could be a good description of that video. 

 

Yes there are race cars with superb acceleration. And there are extremely few flying cars. As far as I can tell the idea is the same or similar to lots of existing ideas of combining a car and an aircraft. As an engineer I'm always sceptical when someone:
- takes an old** idea that so far have not really come true 
- neglecting (intentionally or unintentionally) how existing iterations of the idea have failed or are delivering poor results. 
- adds practically noting new to the idea (scientific or engineering)
- thinks the idea suddenly is plausible.

Let's say I am an investor having the resources to build the proposed flying car. What makes your idea stand out? Why should I invest in your idea instead of a more practical or useful one? What are the major engineering achievements you have done that will make this idea works when others have failed? 

 

Also note that you of course can take old ideas and create something successful. But you have to add, or have, something new and/or different than those that already tried without success. 

 

*) Or mockumentary, I do not really know. 

**) 100+ years 

First of all, there is acceleration. Racing cars can accelerate very quickly, so they can reach takeoff speed in a short time and a short distance.

Secondly, you could put 2 turbofans on the left and right rear of a racing car. Turbofans don't use a lot of fuel, and they don't hurt the environment very much. They can also rotate very quickly, providing a large amount of thrust.

Third, there's only 1 person in the car (the driver), so not much force is needed to get airborne.

Fourth, racing cars are very safe, and that's why they cost millions of dollars. You could reduce the cost by reducing the number of safety features, but keep some of them, like using a parachute if one of the turbofans fails. You could also use an assembly line to make the cars, which would reduce the cost, and use less dense materials such as plastic, which also cost less, and would fly off the car in case of an accident, which happens with real racing cars. Another way to reduce the cost is to put advertising on the car, like they do with real racing cars.

Fifth, the car would have wings instead of spoilers to give the car lift, and wings could spread out from the bottom of the car to create lift.

You could steer the car by putting 2 flaps on the back, which would make the car turn left and right, You could ascend by spreading the underside wings more or by increasing the speed of the turbofans. You could descend by closing the underside wings a little or by decreasing the speed of the turbofans.

I'm not an engineer or a physicist, which is why I'm giving you a general outline of what the flying racing car would be like. I consider myself to be an amateur scientist, and I've been making up ideas as I go along, so I can answer questions. I would appreciate your comments on the areas I have outlined. Thank you.

[iNow]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

Edit
Apparently true; looked it up.

🤙

[Ghideon]

10 hours ago, IsaacAsimov said:

I'm not an engineer or a physicist, which is why I'm giving you a general outline of what the flying racing car would be like. I consider myself to be an amateur scientist, and I've been making up ideas as I go along, so I can answer questions. I would appreciate your comments on the areas I have outlined.

I have commented on your approach already, your comments in your latest post are just repetitions of your previous ones.

Note that your outline is pretty much a compilation of obvious facts and general concepts. You have not given general outline of what the flying racing car would be like. You have given a general outline of what a flying racing car would not be like. The general ideas and concepts you have posted have been tried in various combinations already, with very limited success. So until you come up with some new approach there is not much to say other than that your general outline has the same problems as all other attempts to build flying cars and also the same limited probability for success. 

 

Edited November 4, 2020 by Ghideon

[Phi for All]

13 hours ago, IsaacAsimov said:

I'm not an engineer or a physicist, which is why I'm giving you a general outline of what the flying racing car would be like. I consider myself to be an amateur scientist, and I've been making up ideas as I go along, so I can answer questions. I would appreciate your comments on the areas I have outlined. Thank you.

!

Moderator Note

In Speculations, you have to support your arguments better than you have. You haven't been carefully taking critique and adjusting your ideas, you've just hopped from one dubious and unsupported explanation to another to another. 

IOW, the areas that you've outlined won't work as you've detailed them. The purpose and execution are poor and you haven't changed that a bit. This is page 2, so you need to find better support for your speculative concept.