Subject:
|
Re: "real" LEGO Hovercraft ? (with/without batteries/RCX "onboard")
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Wed, 27 Nov 2002 01:32:04 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.sszNOSPAM.com>
|
Viewed:
|
2620 times
|
| |
|
|
On Tue, 26 Nov 2002, Rob Limbaugh wrote:
> A ducted fan approach may work.
>
> Ducted fan hovercraft have one or two big fan blades on the back that push
> the craft forward, but a duct takes some of the air and uses it to fill the
> skirt. This is probably the "lightest" design approach. Direction
> (including reverse) is controlled by vanes on the very back.
Basic LCAC design. The air that drives the skirt is -not- derived from the
direction fans but rather from the turbine input plenums (those babies
will suck as much air in just a few 10's of sec. as goes through your
entire house in year). If you took air from the vector fans you wouldn't
be able to fill the skirt until -after- you started to move, which
requires the skirt to be filled. And reverse is -not- derived from vanes,
but rather a PTO with a reverse gear, turbines only turn one way. Most
LCAC's -won't- go backward, they rotate around their 'center of thrust'
(as compared to center of gravity), which does use the vanes.
The ones that -used- to ply the English Channel were always favorites of
mine. It's a pity I'll never get to ride one now.
--
____________________________________________________________________
We don't see things as they are, ravage@ssz.com
we see them as we are. www.ssz.com
jchoate@open-forge.org
Anais Nin www.open-forge.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
32 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
