Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Goodyear Inflatoplane

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 73 posts

Re: Goodyear Inflatoplane

#51

Post by crashmat »

hi-v-rocknroll wrote: post #46

I saw this in a documentary many years ago as some sort of spy aircraft to exfil from a hostile country. While a cool concept, subsequent ultralight aircraft made this design obsolete. Just don't get shot at or have a leak. While it could be very compact to transport, it's not very practical or robust. Also, the service ceiling and service floor(?) could vary based on temperature. For example, if it started at sea le…

It says because of the airflow from the engine it could be punctured by up to 6 .30 calibre bullets and maintain pressure. Is this enough resilience? (I don't really know about aircraft combat)

Re: Goodyear Inflatoplane

#52

Post by _yb2s »

mapt wrote: post #34
_yb2s wrote: post #14

I wonder if this is more practical nowadays. Modern “drop stitch” inflatable kayaks and paddle boards are extremely rigid, strong, light, and reliable. They also have precise 3D shapes determined by the length and position of the internal drop stitch threads. Has anyone tried using that tech to create an inflatable airplane?

Google recommends the Woopy-Fly inflatable ultralight, though it's not clear whether it's actually in production Discussions are not optimistic, but do invoke some related inflatable craft - https://www.reddit.com/r/WeirdWings/comments/n7a4k1/what_hap...

Haha, that looks incredibly dangerous. A floppy hang glider with much less lift and stability than a regular hang glider, and it needs continuous electrical power and two working fans to stay inflated.

If I've learned anything from youtube - flying is not an expensive or inaccessible hobby. But safe flying is.

Re: Goodyear Inflatoplane

#53

Post by helpfulContrib »

hi-v-rocknroll wrote: post #49
k7sune wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something like a powered paraglider comes to mind. It has the additional benefit of being reusable.

Why rely on an inflated wing that can be punctured or change in stiffness with temperature and altitude when fiberglass and carbon fiber rods exist?

Portability and durability.

Imagine a version with modern drop-stitch technology .. [1]

[1] - https://www.yachtingworld.com/yachts-and-gear/the-new-inflat...

Re: Goodyear Inflatoplane

#55

Post by tooltechgeek »

hi-v-rocknroll wrote: post #48
bloopernova wrote: post #30

Would inflatable wings/bodies work on Mars or a similar low pressure environment?

If you searched the web, inflatable bodies have been used. The problem is Mars atmosphere is 2% and gravity is 38% that of Earth's. Gravity-corrected wing loading to reach the equivalent of say a small plane on Earth would require 20x the wing area. A proposal demonstrator of this was suggested in a paper: https://www.icas.org/ICAS_ARCHIVE/ICAS2014/data/papers/2014_...

wouldn’t the lower density be equivalent to a higher altitude on earth? Propellers would be not effective but some type of jet or rocket would?

Re: Goodyear Inflatoplane

#57

Post by IG_Semmelweiss »

whamlastxmas wrote: post #42
IG_Semmelweiss wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if you are stuck in north korea and the duffel bag containing this landed just at your patio ? I am surprised this was not pursued more aggressively, in fact.

Pretty sure NK would easily shoot this out of the sky

Is this true if you are invisible to radar ? (i assume inflatables absorb radio waves much better than metal?)

Or flying low ?

Re: Goodyear Inflatoplane

#58

Post by buran77 »

londons_explore wrote: post #28
buran77 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At that point you're not dealing with a "flimsy structure out of thin steel foil" that you can inflate to hundreds of psi. You described what's basically a submarine, multiple high and low pressure hulls able to withstand hundreds of psi of pressure. Just for some reference, 1000psi is the kind of pressure you get ~700m depth (2300ft), double what a submarine would regularly withstand. Pressure in your average propan…

A CO2 fire extinguisher is about 1000 psi.

A 1000psi fire extinguisher uses ~5mm thick steel even for that relatively small diameter cylinder. A typical extinguisher is ~200ish psi with a wall probably ~1mm thick.

This highlights that high pressure and "thin steel foil" do not go well together and don't scale in your favor. Pressure makes any failure considerably more dangerous.

Re: Goodyear Inflatoplane

#59

Post by euroderf »

rbanffy wrote: post #18
Gare wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Except with steel as the tensile material, you can probably use pressures up around 1000 psi, making the whole structure have an amazing strength to weight ratio. Congratulations, you have created a bomb.

Wasn’t the Centaur upper stage pressurised. I remember an incident where one collapsed under load because the tank lost pressure.

Atlas too. Thin aluminum shell.
Post reply on HN