Escafarc Posted March 7, 2010 Report Share Posted March 7, 2010 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
austenandrews Posted March 7, 2010 Report Share Posted March 7, 2010 Re: A nore reasonable option Oo, nice! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rapier Posted March 8, 2010 Report Share Posted March 8, 2010 Re: A nore reasonable option I want!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markdoc Posted March 8, 2010 Report Share Posted March 8, 2010 Re: A nore reasonable option If you want, you can see if it's still for sale: http://www.stuff.co.nz/oddstuff/3389826/Homemade-flying-hovercraft-up-for-auction It actually looks like a pretty practical device, with a range of 225 km and a cruising speed of 90 km/hr. Technically speaking if you lived somewhere like Great Barrier or Waiheke island in New Zealand, you really could commute to work in the city with this. If you added a light canopy (you'd probably gain in improved aerodynamics more than you'd lose in terms of extra weight, with regard to speed and range) it'd be practical in wet weather as well. And it clearly can carry two people .... Sweet. cheers, Mark Edit: yeah, it's still for sale: currently at 27K NZD, which is less than 19 grand US. And as I suspected, as a ground effect vehicle, it's technically a boat, so no special licence is required. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
austenandrews Posted March 8, 2010 Report Share Posted March 8, 2010 Re: A nore reasonable option In practical terms, I'd want a roll cage. I bet it's not terribly difficult to flip. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markdoc Posted March 9, 2010 Report Share Posted March 9, 2010 Re: A nore reasonable option In practical terms' date=' I'd want a roll cage. I bet it's not terribly difficult to flip.[/quote'] A roll cage probably isn't going to be very useful: it's not designed to fly over land - and technically not legal to do so. Legally, it's a boat. OK, a flying boat, true, that can also sail slowly on land, but still a boat cheers, Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
austenandrews Posted March 9, 2010 Report Share Posted March 9, 2010 Re: A nore reasonable option A hovercraft doesn't make much distinction between land and water. And more importantly, they're not known for braking performance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markdoc Posted March 10, 2010 Report Share Posted March 10, 2010 Re: A nore reasonable option Right: it can fly over land. It's just that legal additions, in the form of posted bonds and a lawyer would offer you more immediately-needed protection if you actually tried. In other words, it's not legal to fly it over land. There is a technical reason not to, as well. You've already noted the lack of braking. But in addition, it's not a plane - it's a ground effect vehicle and they react poorly to sudden changes in the level of the surface they are flying over. Big waves aside, you can reasonably expect the water, wherever you are flying, to be flat. The ground, not so much. The first time you hit a sudden change in the surface (like a ditch, say) you are likely to be toast. It's why GEVs have never taken off (ho ho) even though they would seem to have plenty of military applications. cheers. Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
austenandrews Posted March 10, 2010 Report Share Posted March 10, 2010 Re: A nore reasonable option The ground' date=' not so much. The first time you hit a sudden change in the surface (like a ditch, say) you are likely to be toast.[/quote'] Hence, I'd want a roll cage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markdoc Posted March 11, 2010 Report Share Posted March 11, 2010 Re: A nore reasonable option Why put a roll cage on something that's not designed - or legally permitted - to fly over land? All it'd do, in case of an accident, is keep you inside so you sank with the craft. It'd be like putting seatbelts on a bicycle. cheers, Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
austenandrews Posted March 11, 2010 Report Share Posted March 11, 2010 Re: A nore reasonable option Why put a roll cage on something that's not designed - or legally permitted - to fly over land? All it'd do' date=' in case of an accident, is keep you inside so you sank with the craft. It'd be like putting seatbelts on a bicycle.[/quote'] Because it's far more likely to have an accident on land than a boat? I'm not seeing the confusion here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted March 12, 2010 Report Share Posted March 12, 2010 Re: A nore reasonable option The confusion is that one of you is law abiding and one of you isn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
austenandrews Posted March 12, 2010 Report Share Posted March 12, 2010 Re: A nore reasonable option As long as we're passing laws that prevent flying vehicles from veering off course and crashing, can we do the same for cars? I never realized that was an option. This changes everything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted March 12, 2010 Report Share Posted March 12, 2010 Re: A nore reasonable option Oh yes, government officials have always been able to legislate the laws of physics. It's all laws, you see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Escafarc Posted March 12, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 12, 2010 Re: A nore reasonable option Oh yes' date=' government officials have always been able to legislate the laws of physics. It's all laws, you see.[/quote'] Unless you're in Texas then physics is just magic handwaving. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rapier Posted March 12, 2010 Report Share Posted March 12, 2010 Re: A nore reasonable option Unless you're in Texas then physics is just magic handwaving. Unless it's football-physics. That's real. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
austenandrews Posted March 12, 2010 Report Share Posted March 12, 2010 Re: A nore reasonable option Unless it's football-physics. That's real. The speed of Friday Night Lights is a universal constant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markdoc Posted March 12, 2010 Report Share Posted March 12, 2010 Re: A nore reasonable option As long as we're passing laws that prevent flying vehicles from veering off course and crashing' date=' can we do the same for cars? I never realized that was an option. This changes everything.[/quote'] If you watch how the thing works, not only is it not designed to fly over land, it's not designed to fly too close to land. It's designed (and only licenced for) water take off and landing - you get to and from that point like a regular hovercraft, so it's not like you are going to be (or at least are not supposed to be) swooping up to the shore to land. My real objection though is that a practical roll cage, capable of protecting you from the mass of the engine, sitting behind you, in any serious crash is probably sufficient that the thing couldn't fly - at the very least it's likely make it dangerously top heavy. So in that case, I don't see much advantage to a "safety" feature designed to prevent a relatively unlikely event* cheers, Mark *of course, a more likely event is slamming into the side of a container ship at 125 km/hr coming home from a party late at night, but in that case, all the roll cage will do is keep the really big fish from getting at your remains Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.