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

61–70 of 73 posts

Re: Goodyear Inflatoplane

#61

Post by marcosdumay »

scubazealous wrote: post #21
londons_explore wrote: post #4

I think there are lots of possibilities for inflatable vehicles which cannot be deflated . For example, make a flimsy structure out of thin steel foil, then pressurize it to give it far more strength than it would otherwise have. Same as the strength of a coke can. 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 weigh…

It would be cool, especially with advances in plastics you could layer over the steel to protect it from corrosion like what they do with soda cans. For reference, a steel or aluminum SCUBA tank is usually filled to 3000psi and when I fill steel tanks I can hear and sometimes see the metal start to slightly balloon. This is normal because steel is not brittle but it is very strong. There is a lot of rules put in plac…

Yes, in theory steel is not the best material for a high-pressure tank.

We use it because it's cheap and well tested. But we are probably better of with a layered combination of a few different materials. Steel may not even enter it.

Re: Goodyear Inflatoplane

#62

Post by hi-v-rocknroll »

tooltechgeek wrote: post #55
hi-v-rocknroll wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Sure. It likely also means different wing geometry and it needs to move faster.

Re: Goodyear Inflatoplane

#63

Post by hi-v-rocknroll »

crashmat wrote: post #51
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)

So it's a flying bouncy castle or flying tube man. Makes sense. Imagine it would be extra fun if there were an inflatable Fokker Dr.I.

Re: Goodyear Inflatoplane

#64

Post by pbronez »

frankus wrote: post #39

I've noodled around with something like this for a climate-controlled micromobility vehicle. Something like the Nimbus but built with ebike components ( https://nimbusev.com -- godspeed to them because I really want them to succeed, in part so I can buy one). I'm pretty sure it would be ridiculous and impractical, but we could use a way to solve the "it's only five blocks away but the weather's miserable" in a way th…

Nimbus looks super cool! I’d love to try one. Top speed of 50mph suggests it’s not enough car for highway commuting, unfortunately.

I’m more excited about the Aptera. I think it’s significantly bigger and more highway-capable than the Nimbus, while still much more efficient than contemporary EVs. It’ll cost twice as much as the Nimbus as well… quite different vehicles other than the common 2-front, 1-back wheel configuration.

Re: Goodyear Inflatoplane

#65

Post by ChoGGi »

pbronez wrote: post #64
frankus wrote: post #39

I've noodled around with something like this for a climate-controlled micromobility vehicle. Something like the Nimbus but built with ebike components ( https://nimbusev.com -- godspeed to them because I really want them to succeed, in part so I can buy one). I'm pretty sure it would be ridiculous and impractical, but we could use a way to solve the "it's only five blocks away but the weather's miserable" in a way th…

Nimbus looks super cool! I’d love to try one. Top speed of 50mph suggests it’s not enough car for highway commuting, unfortunately. I’m more excited about the Aptera. I think it’s significantly bigger and more highway-capable than the Nimbus, while still much more efficient than contemporary EVs. It’ll cost twice as much as the Nimbus as well… quite different vehicles other than the common 2-front, 1-back wheel confi…

The Nimbus S shows 75mph

Re: Goodyear Inflatoplane

#66

Post by rbanffy »

dylan604 wrote: post #44
GuB-42 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I must admit I tend to watch SpaceX test flights for the potential fireworks. But for, say the JWST launch, it really wasn't with the same intent. In the former, it is just SpaceX way of doing business, no big deal, no significant payload being destroyed and the next rocket is on the line. The latter is the result of billions of dollars, many years of work and great scientific promises that could be blown to pieces.…

> And of course, for manned flight, who in their right mind wants astronauts dead? Which begs the question, who wants to fly Starliner?

Or Orion’s heatshield for that matter. Orion 2 should have the attachment mechanism redesigned, most likely as arms attached to the upper side of the reentry vehicle rather than in holes in the shield itself.

Re: Goodyear Inflatoplane

#67

Post by rbanffy »

GuB-42 wrote: post #43
dylan604 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The "controlled" part is not always successful. I'm assuming you're referring to the unnominal situations resulting in the unscheduled rapid disassembly procedures? I wonder how many people watch launches with similar intent as NASCAR races where they're just looking for the crashes or hockey games looking for the fights?

I must admit I tend to watch SpaceX test flights for the potential fireworks. But for, say the JWST launch, it really wasn't with the same intent. In the former, it is just SpaceX way of doing business, no big deal, no significant payload being destroyed and the next rocket is on the line. The latter is the result of billions of dollars, many years of work and great scientific promises that could be blown to pieces.…

Even on SpaceX launches I’m rooting for the rocket.

Re: Goodyear Inflatoplane

#68

Post by nikitaga »

_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?

I'm not 100% sure that they used drop stitch, but the company Prospective Concepts developed a few more modern designs of inflatable wings for various applications.

https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid:306785d0...

https://www.prospective-concepts.ch/html/site_en.htm (click "Projects" > "Air" on the right)

Personally I think this is a technological dead-end, at least for the civil aviation use cases that I understand. The only advantage of an inflatable system is compactness / portability, but since the Inflatoplane, that's been solved in many other ways by rogallo wings, hang glider type wings, paragliders, parachutes, various types of fold-out rigid wings, etc.

And all of the other properties of inflatable wings aren't advantageous other. They're not simpler, lighter, stronger, more durable, or more reliable than the alternative best option, and they don't seem to have a particularly good mix of useful properties to win against the other best alternative for any given use case, even if you assume modern materials and modern techniques.

Re: Goodyear Inflatoplane

#69

Post by knodi123 »

buildsjets wrote: post #47
mapleoin wrote: post #6

People knew how to name things back then.

I fly a Cessna from the time period with a Nav-O-Matic autopilot, Land-O-Matic landing gear, and an Omnivision window.

Okay, I had to look that one up, and:

> Omni-Vision – The [term for the] rear windows on some Cessna singles, starting with the 182 and 210 in 1962 and followed by the 172 and 150 in 1963 and 1964 respectively. The term was intended to make the pilot feel visibility was improved on the notably poor-visibility Cessna line. The introduction of the rear window caused in most models a loss of cruise speed due to the extra drag, while not adding any useful visibility.

That's hilarious.

Re: Goodyear Inflatoplane

#70

Post by klyrs »

_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?

> The aircraft was in a descending turn when one of the control cables under the wing came off the pulley and was wedged in the pulley bracket, locking the stick. The turn tightened until one of the wings folded up over the propeller and was chopped up.

While the pulley system at the root cause of this could be improved, the failure mode of "floppy wing got chopped up by the prop" seems like there could be quite a lot of ways to get there. Dunno what you think we've done in the last 50 years to improve on this situation, but for anything other than an emergency, I wouldn't want to bet my life on a vehicle like this. Also, I'm having trouble picturing an emergency that would be resolved by an inflatable plane.

Nevermind, I've got it. A single container could hold a hundred inflatable airplanes. That'd be a helluva surprise deployment, if you don't value the lives of your pilots.

Post reply on HN