12.01.2013 Views

the abbreviated reign of “neon” leon spinks

the abbreviated reign of “neon” leon spinks

the abbreviated reign of “neon” leon spinks

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

OOPS 222<br />

American Aeronautic Exposition in New York. It flew, but like a wounded<br />

chicken, and <strong>the</strong> design understandably failed to achieve widespread pub-<br />

lic support. But <strong>the</strong> public imagination caught fire, and in <strong>the</strong> years after<br />

World War I <strong>the</strong> U.S. government dumped a lot <strong>of</strong> money into aviation<br />

research and design. While that funding mostly went to develop better<br />

airplanes, a certain breed <strong>of</strong> entrepreneur—does <strong>the</strong> term “pocket protector”<br />

conjure any images?—set to work personalizing <strong>the</strong> dream.<br />

Building a flying car is much like trying to build a brick that will<br />

float. “The automobile and <strong>the</strong> airplane, as we know <strong>the</strong>m, are incompatible<br />

in many ways,” wrote Lionel Salisbury, <strong>the</strong> editor <strong>of</strong> Roadable Times,<br />

an Internet magazine devoted to <strong>the</strong> colorful history <strong>of</strong> flying cars and<br />

“roadable aircraft,” and a brimming well <strong>of</strong> optimism about <strong>the</strong> future <strong>of</strong><br />

<strong>the</strong> idea. “Some <strong>of</strong> [<strong>the</strong> challenges] may seem insurmountable, but we<br />

believe creativity and per sistence can be made to prevail.”<br />

The main problem is that cars usually perform better when <strong>the</strong>y’re<br />

heavy, and airplanes perform best when <strong>the</strong>y’re not. Plus, a fl ying- car<br />

design must accommodate <strong>the</strong> unhelpful reality that <strong>the</strong> ideal center <strong>of</strong><br />

gravity in a car is different than it is in an airplane. Airplane controls must<br />

be designed to operate a vehicle in three axes—roll, pitch, and yaw—while<br />

its engine pushes it forward; car controls need only power <strong>the</strong> car forward<br />

or backward, and turn it left or right. What you end up with after combining<br />

<strong>the</strong> two concepts is a vehicle that manages to be both a crappy airplane<br />

and a crappy car. Those primary issues overshadow a host <strong>of</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r confounding<br />

problems, including convertibility, aes<strong>the</strong>tics, and marketing.<br />

Still, o<strong>the</strong>r wounded chickens began emerging from private garages<br />

and hangars between <strong>the</strong> two world wars, including Waldo Waterman’s<br />

Studebaker-powered Arrowbile, which in 1937 vividly demonstrated <strong>the</strong><br />

differing aerodynamic requirements <strong>of</strong> ground and air vehicles, and an<br />

autogyro designed by Juan de la Cierva called <strong>the</strong> Pitcairn PA-36 Whirlwing,<br />

a helicopter-style contraption that in 1939 toyed with <strong>the</strong> notion <strong>of</strong><br />

vertical take<strong>of</strong>fs and landings. The phenomenon really took <strong>of</strong>f in <strong>the</strong>

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!