• CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    The guy with no railings above a rotor is the underdog, at least.

    What are those projections underneath?

    • tal@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      If I had to guess at a glance, the pipe-looking things are to guard the rotor against striking the ground. If you mean the things hanging off them, I’d guess that they’re inflatated bladders to spread out the time of impact when landing.

      EDIT: Rotor guy is apparently flying a de Lackner HZ-1 Aerocycle, and yeah, that’s apparently what they’re for:

      The aircraft’s landing gear consisted of airbags at the end of each arm of the frame along with a large rubber float in the middle, providing amphibious capability,[5] although this arrangement was later replaced by a pair of conventional helicopter-type skids.[8]

      EDIT2: The other one is apparently the Hiller VZ-1 Pawnee.

      • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Hmm. I guess that sounds lighter than springs. Do other aircraft have air-based shock absorbers?

        Edit:

        Intended to be operated by inexperienced pilots with a minimum of 20 minutes of instruction

        Lol, so that guy isn’t even a pilot, either. RIP

        • marcos@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 month ago

          Maybe even during a war they weren’t able to find any pilots wanting to use those things.

          • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            According the the article linked it didn’t even pass the testing phase, because surprise-surprise guys kept crashing. That was the 50’s in peacetime, and the whole thing probably started because helicopters were the hype of the era and there was a lot of funding.

        • Death_Equity@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          Depends on the aircraft if it has gas or hydraulic shock absorbers. Some lightweight aircraft just have torsion based shock absorption.

            • Death_Equity@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 month ago

              It is done by allowing fluid to flow through passages between chambers separated with a piston. Your car’s shocks and struts work the same way. There are also ones with external reservoir that may allow for more travel or that can be pressurized to alter resistance.

              • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 month ago

                You’d still need some kind of restoring force. Visibly, some cars use metal springs for at least part of that.

                • Death_Equity@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  The fluid pushes on a reservoir of nitrogen that keeps the plane from bottoming out. It is a progressive pressure system, so it gets harder to move the more force is applied.

            • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 month ago

              Glancing at Wikipedia, all hydraulic shock absorbers seem to use pneumatic compression. The oil is mostly a mechanical linkage, lubricant, and heat sink. I expect a liquid-only design could work, in a coilover monotube, but the spring would be taking all the compression, while the loose piston moving through oil simply resists change and smooths out the motion. There’s just not much reason to avoid adding a floating piston and some gas at the bottom of that. Underwater applications, maybe.

  • PenisDuckCuck9001@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    The one on the right looks like it might plausibly be able to fly under extremely optimal conditions. The one on the left is a complete shitpost of an idea.

    • jballs@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 month ago

      Lol seriously. The one on the left looks like someone strapped 4 pogo-sticks to the corners of a box-fan and called it a day .

  • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    1 month ago

    It never occurred to me that multiple state-funded programs were started by engineers who felt existing rotorcraft were too stable and fail-safe.

    Both of these manage to make less sense than the serious and groundbreaking industrial design of Inspector Gadget.

  • BCX@dormi.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    1 month ago

    Guy on the right doesn’t look like he has a free hand to shoot, plus he’s on what’s basically a portable version of one of the Mortal Kombat pit levels

  • Gork@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 month ago

    I need this for my commute to work.

    And slash or for participating in amphibious invasions, depending on the mood and geopolitical requirements.