What about those funny shaped cars? [video]
youtube.com
youtube.com
Both airplanes and cars were very new, and they shared many design features and goals.
Where did it all go wrong? For one small example, consider the weight penalty/bounty. These number are illustrative, not exact or proportional.
Imagine that saving 1 gram of weight on an airplane would be worth 1 dollar over the lifetime of the airplane. In that case you would have a bounty of 1 dollar per gram; your engineers could spend that dollar to "add lightness" to the airplane. The purchase price would go up, but the lifetime cost of ownership would go down.
For an automobile, the bounty might be 0.05 dollar per gram. Automobiles are getting lighter nowadays, but very slowly.
So, if you try to make a car with the same structural components as an airplane, you may be paying a penalty of up to 0.95 dollars per gram relatively speaking!
In other words, you're paying just as much for your flying car as you would have for an airplane, and now you have a vehicle that is bad at both being a car and being an airplane.
This entirely leaves aside safety equipment and many other questions.
---
One other thing to note is that many of the "streamlined" cars shown are actually aerodynamic disasters due to small trim pieces/headlights/etc; but they never actually got fast enough for it to really matter.
The speed difference is another - streamlining mattered not at all for a car at the speeds they were generally going at that time.
Further, a plane is always headed into the wind; cars are pinned to the road by friction and most often have cross-winds. There were tragic car rollover problems throughout the 30's because of this misconception/failure to recognize utterly different design goals.
Generally the only thing in common was, a factory making chassis and shells. Other than the manufacturing technology, there was almost complete mismatch of design goals.
Yes. If goals were vectors, cars and airplanes have many that align on the direction, but have VERY different magnitudes.
Both the automobile and airplane ... took off ... atvirtually the same moment, once petroleum-based fuels and reciprocating, Otto-cycle engines existed. Power-to-weight matters more for aircraft, but it's a critical problem for both, along with range (fuel capacity) and reliability.
Body design and aerodynamics aren't the only issue. Though also a bigger problem for aircraft.
Materials (duraluminium), controls, aerodynamic theory, infrastructure (airports, navigation, traffic control, safety standards, incident investigations, etc.), are other key elements.
Then came gas turbines. Auto engineers tried to apply them but they weren't a good fit.
And so many pod-car designers didn't address controls at all. They just took a Ford chassis and made a new (wood!) frame and skin.
Further, the auto price-point means the fancy materials were a no-go for a production car anyway.
As for traffic control, safety, navigation - different as night and day. Good call.
For aircraft, there's the matteer of movement in three dimensions, with speed, yaw, pitch, and roll controls, as well as communication, navigation, and cabin environment controls. Autos have only two dimensions of freedom and less complex requirements generally, but orders of magnitude more operators with orders of magnitude less training and oversight. Addressing user-base scale is its own complex problem.[1]
To be clear, my list of key elements wasn't asserting equivalence between land vs. air craft, but adding them to fuels and engines as crucial enabling technologies.
________________________________
Notes:
1. Arguably, much of the increase in computer processing capacity has gone in to enabling ever less-skilled populations to make effective use of them.
Thank you for this clarification
When they did get fast enough for aerodynamics to matter, the designs looked very strange.[1] Dodge managed to sneak a car with a giant wing in back into NASCAR, and it beat everybody. So for a few years, all the players had wings. This caused a sales problem. NASCAR cars are supposed to be something like "stock" cars, and manufacturers have to sell some number of the things. The Dodge designer said “I showed the car to the head of sales at Dodge. He saw the wing and said, ‘I can’t sell that shit.’” So, after a few years, the "aero" cars were banned from NASCAR.
[1] https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/a30349118/eye-of-th...
I’ve had an unfaired recumbent tricycle (a Greenspeed GT3) for over five years and they’re great, especially for long-distance travel and touring (I’ve gone on solo multi-week trips a few times, e.g. St Louis to Philadelphia in America and through parts of Victoria and South Australia in Australia). I’m currently planning and intend soon to start designing a velomobile and trailer that I’d like to build from scratch next year. (These plans are subject to complete change, of course.) It’s an interesting domain where a casual person with no particularly relevant training can actually get going and produce quite decent results at comparatively low cost. (I mean less than a few thousand dollars.) There’s lots of interesting and useful information on the internet, though most of it is from 2005–2012, which is a common era for interesting things happening on the internet, and you’ll find lots of broken links, and it’ll probably help a bit if you’re Dutch.
1. Those designs may have just been ahead of their time, and now that retro-future is back in fashion, I could see those swept designs being wildly popular. I would love to own a vehicle that looks like a 1940's-1950's view of the future.
2. I am glad that people like Matthew Bird exist in the world.
This is just wishful thinking, but electric cars might be the way forward in making that happen. Customizable top shell, standardized bottom skate. Design and order your own.
Lots of older-gen designs would not be certifyably street legal if released today.
edit: upon googling the subject, apparently some companies are already working on it. I'm not surprised.
https://i.imgur.com/5sc1Baz.jpg
Also, those don't hit the 1940's-50's future chic look. They are solidly a 1990's product. They're like the Chumbawumba (sp?) of cars.