the abbreviated reign of “neon” leon spinks
the abbreviated reign of “neon” leon spinks
the abbreviated reign of “neon” leon spinks
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>