Another "unique" model subject.

Cool picture. I collect old science fiction and have looked through old stacks of Popular Science at some of the dealers - I don't think any of the featured future systems ever really happened - almost like "Be on popular Science and disappear". Everything from the family submarine to weird versions of land, sea and air vehicles. Many would make really cool looking models - like Luft 46 and some of the Victorian space age stuff. It's interesting that in most cases they never saw break throughs like jet engines - instead we had 24 engine pusher/puller sea planes that were like flying hotels. Illogical projections of how far we could push an existing concept.

Val Kraut

I try to mine the possibilities from the absurd. While the Uber-Bus is out, I can see how you could attempt something along these lines with helicopters and trains. I'm not sure what the application or need could be, but a helipad rail car is very do-able. I wouldn't be surprised if one doesn't already exist in the world somewhere. I can visualize some guy straight out of the pages of James Bond - Eastern European, politically connected former Soviet General now astride the world's richest oil supply - speeding across the open expanses of Russia on his Siberian Streamliner. Gets a call, hops aboard his private helo and away he goes - to the ABBA Mama Mia show. ;-)

One of my big what ifs the last several years was imagining the possibilities of combining the properties of an airship with a jet airliner. A year or two ago a company popped up (on my radar at least) pursuing that very line of thinking. It's nice to be validated. ;-) For me the safety you could build into a semi-buoyant aircraft along with the potential heavy or oversized object lifting capabilities and the potential for reduced fuel costs make such musings worthwhile.

I have no idea what the guy behind this "CV Greyhound" had in mind.

WmB

Which brings to mind the question, what ever happened to the Piasecki Helistat-concept heavy lifter? That was shown in Popular Science a number of times, both in drawings and some photographs, and then dropped off the radar, so to speak....

After the prototype fell apart in midair - killing one of the crew - they canceled the project.

Pat

Pat Flannery said the following on 30/03/2008 06:50:

Now that's an interesting project. Anyone got lots of spare sprue?

Pity that they dropped the idea. Think what a good water bomber it could be fighting forest fires.

Pat Flannery said the following on 30/03/2008 16:33:

What about the Dragonfly? Okay, I know it's a model but an interesting concept.

?v=G2qp2ai7bdw

Some of the people who worked on the Helistat quit the company before it flew, as they thought that the whole thing was a accident waiting to happen, and that the whole structure that held the four helicopter fuselages wasn't designed correctly from a structural point of view. Although the four rotors would give it a great deal of lift, what about forward thrust and controllability in turns? In even a modest wind it might have gotten blown all over the place. As to the PA-39 concept...the Russians built this thing, and it was a mess to control:

two widely separated rotors cause that much trouble, imagine four as far as controllability goes. Actually, even this looks more like a sound idea than the PA-39: it's time to look at Capt. Rickenbacker's Airplane of the Future: you look at the cutaway of the control cabin, the pilot flies it while standing and via a ship's wheel. Oh course, that thing is puny compared to Bel Geddes Airliner #4 design: there's a model that needs to be made.

Pat

Pat Flannery said the following on 30/03/2008 22:00:

I did read somewhere that one police force is using one of those Dragonflies to monitor crowds and to see over stuff.

Never saw that one before; it looks like a interesting approach to a small UAV. I think scaling is going to be a problem though, along with Piasecki's desire to use four stock helicopter bodies hooked together, rather than building something new.

Pat