See also:
Cyclonic Rocket (circa 1930)
'Flying Saucer' Buses (1950)
New York in 1960 (1935)
Amphibian Monorail (Popular Science, 1934)
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
A look into the future that never was
You've reached version 1.0 of the Paleo-Future blog. If you'd like to check out the latest posts please visit: http://www.paleofuture.com. Thanks.
|
| Paleo-Future |
| Visit this group |
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(453)
-
▼
October
(26)
- Women and the Year 2000 (1967)
- Robots vs. Musicians (1931)
- What We Are Coming To (1895)
- Closer Than We Think! Fat Plants and Meat Beets (1...
- The End of the Future (1991)
- Vacations of the Future (1981)
- Not a Robot - A Fire Eater (1937)
- Pacific Bell Concept Video (Part 3, 1991)
- Mickey Futurism (1980s)
- Pacific Bell Concept Video (Part 2, 1991)
- Forbes: Special Report on the Future
- Sky Toboggan (1935)
- PC Magazine's 100 Favorite Blogs
- Future City: 20 | 21
- Pacific Bell Concept Video (Part 1, 1991)
- Glenn T. Seaborg's 1989 (1964)
- Tomorrow's TV-Phone (1956)
- GTE's Classroom of the Future (1987)
- Atomic Power Plant of the Future (1939)
- The Future is Now (1955)
- Space Age Lunch Boxes (1950s and 60s)
- Instant Baby Machine (1930)
- Paleo-Future in the Wall Street Journal
- The Future of Personal Robots (1986)
- All the Music of the Centuries (1908)
- Chuck Klosterman on Tulsa's Time Capsule
-
▼
October
(26)
8 comments:
Heck, that wouldn't be dangerous at all.
Well, it *is* 1935 afterall. If it stays up, its fun. If it crashes, it puts you out of your misery.
In keeping with the "Toboggan" nomenclature, the Sky Toboggan is unsteerable and no brakes.
I want one!
It is a tractor-propeller, lifting-body aircraft - while most existing lifting bodies or flying wings have either jet or pusher propulsion, I'd hardly call it "completely impractical." Though as an engineer, I have to admit that the wing loading looks really really high...
Not to mention that the propellers look like they're 4 feet across. Yeah, that'll fly.
The engines are in the cabin. Wouldn't that be a little noisy?
Dangerous?
"As strong as, or stronger than, canvas!"
4 feet propellers should be enough, hey, you should just make them spin a lot faster, duh.
Also, I can not see how such small engines could ever be noisy, even in the cabin.
Small engines use little fuel, so small tanks in the back of the plane won't make the center of gravity shift TOO much, I hope.
So, no problem. I order one!
Nevermind all those minor quibbles about propeller and engine design. You can't possibly knock an aircraft that has no need for fuel tanks!
Post a Comment