Russell McMahon wrote:
>
> In due course maybe.
> But first he intends to take out all the manned "time to altitude" records
> in the next few years - but not with the craft you see there. That is just a
> concept investigator. They have 2 unmanned versions flying so far.
> "From the people who brought you Doom" :-) (seriously!)


As much respect as I have for the Carmack brothers
and their amazing programming abilities I doubt John's
(and staffs) mechanical engineering skills looking
at some of their "flying machine" prototypes.

Why put the payload on top and the four rockets on
the base at floor level?? Surely hang the payload
or pilot at the bottom and the rocket structure at
the top, the rockets are quite far out from the axis
so it will fix so many of their stability and landing
ground effect feedback problems. I was designing flying
machines from about 8 years old and never would have
made a silly mistake like that. Always HANG your
CG weight below your lift engines if at all possible
guys.

And why so many engines?? Why not a central lift
engine, in the middle with the payload divided in two
and hanging lower and to the front and rear, giving
neutrally stable lift with minimum attitude
compensation needed?? ONE rocket lift engine, some
ducting system for attitude adjustment etc.

From their web site I sensed a whole "we have no clue
but we'll try this and see what happens" attitude.
I really appreciate anyone trying to develop new
and wonderful tech stuff but they are in dire need
of someone who has built mechanical stuff THAT WORKS
for about 20 years.

Their whole flying platform concept seems to be based
on a totally ridiculous mechanical system trying to
rely on very fast software to compensate for all
its flaws and hopefully make it fly. :o)
-Roman

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
mailto:piclist-unsubscribe-request@mitvma.mit.edu