"But the nature and structure of the propulsion system determines the shape" you say? Of course. However we're not at that point yet. We're trying to popularize the concept among rich kids. The popularity of the post with pictures of futuristic luxury Zeppelins shows that a sort of cultural momentum is building for flying living quarters. The Atlantic had an article about hipsters having a strange cabin fetish. Well, we're taking the cabin into the sky and ripping off the impractical geeky steampunk airship nonsense off it (although we must admit that art deco still has its charm, see below).
We do have some guiding principles though beyond cynical marketing.
1) The house should be a lot faster than most current blimps and thus utilize sufficient angularity borrowed from the ongoing efforts of Boeing and Northrop Grumman to win lucrative unmanned aerial vehicle contracts. Yes, there's dozens of countries developing drones but we should focus on which players have the most money, technology, resources, and talent to work with. The futile struggle to keep China out of west Pacific is serious business and so far our flying house shape borrows the triangle heavily.
Rome wasn't built in a day as can be seen but we want the flying house to utilize every side like a real house would and/or hopefully be able to spin on its vertical axis (if not move sideways and backwards when needed).
2) The shape should be thick enough to accommodate up to 250 square meters of space (average US house in 2009 up from 130 sq meters in 1970) without fully resorting to oval/cylinder aerodynamics of a futuristic blimp.
3) Once again, it will not be powered by a sack of gas and neither will it be too fast. So no insane scramjet shapes (see below).
_Mach_7_computational_fluid_dynamic_(CFD).jpg)
There's a dozen other more technical principles that are not relevant to the shape as much. In essence, we'll take the best of the high tech DARPA and amateur airship concept art, the best of the drones, and integrate it onto a sturdy floating platform spinal chord that extends its ribcage support beams throughout the whole house. The final product will be designed to be visually and psychologically marketable to the tastes of a certain elite demographic. Cultural, subcultural, and technological trends point to flying houses and we'll see you next time about this.
.jpg)
See also he Voliris effort. Sort of a lifting-gas supported wing, of very short aspect ratio and the inhabited and driven part hanging under the leading edge. This mimics in a lot of ways, the 1930s US Arup planes, and the Nemeth parachute plane. One thing used to good effect on the Voliris "Worlds' smallest airship" was the flexible suspension between gasbag and underslung weight to vary the AoA. As the cab moves forwards on the ground, they gain the 35+degrees AoA for the very low aspect ratio to take off at very slow speeds.
ReplyDeleteIN normal flight it hangs underneath at the proper AoA for cruising flight without the "parachute lift" huge amount of drag the low aspect ratio can create at low speed high AOA flight. (the bogeyman of low aspect ratio is the huge induced drag. It's not there unless you want it, for low speed. They don't have bad efficiency for cruise, and the little all-wing planes have been fast for their power.
Previously, the HTA craft with such low aspect ratio have had awkward long front landing gear and have need to pitch up so sharply (aspect ratio -span squared divided by area) of around 1.3 (very nearly a circle) gives 3+ times as much lift you'd normally get at such low speeds and won't stall until they're very slow. 1400 pound test planes were coming in at 25mph. Very steep approach and climb-outs and stall-proof mild but responsive behavior are seen in video of Arup planes, reported for them and the Nemeth. But at landing, the nose is so high it gets difficult to see the ground in front of your nose. They've all had windows in the undersides.