Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
Browse by Decade
Amazonian
Advertisements

Advertisements

Search
Advertisements

Amazon Fun

Navigation
« Forbes: Special Report on the Future | Main | PC Magazine's 100 Favorite Blogs »
Monday
Oct152007

Sky Toboggan (1935)

Forget personal jet packs, where's my sky toboggan? The April, 1935 issue of Science and Mechanics featured this wonderful "Sky Sled" on its cover.



See also:
Cyclonic Rocket (circa 1930)
'Flying Saucer' Buses (1950)
New York in 1960 (1935)
Amphibian Monorail (Popular Science, 1934)

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

References (1)

References allow you to track sources for this article, as well as articles that were written in response to this article.

Reader Comments (9)

Heck, that wouldn't be dangerous at all.

October 16, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterDD

Well, it *is* 1935 afterall. If it stays up, its fun. If it crashes, it puts you out of your misery.

October 16, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterAnonymous

In keeping with the "Toboggan" nomenclature, the Sky Toboggan is unsteerable and no brakes.
I want one!

October 16, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterSorcerer Mickey

It is a tractor-propeller, lifting-body aircraft - while most existing lifting bodies or flying wings have either jet or pusher propulsion, I'd hardly call it "completely impractical." Though as an engineer, I have to admit that the wing loading looks really really high...

October 16, 2007 | Unregistered Commentermike

Not to mention that the propellers look like they're 4 feet across. Yeah, that'll fly.

October 17, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterAnonymous

The engines are in the cabin. Wouldn't that be a little noisy?

November 20, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterAnonymous

Dangerous?
"As strong as, or stronger than, canvas!"

4 feet propellers should be enough, hey, you should just make them spin a lot faster, duh.

Also, I can not see how such small engines could ever be noisy, even in the cabin.
Small engines use little fuel, so small tanks in the back of the plane won't make the center of gravity shift TOO much, I hope.

So, no problem. I order one!

April 1, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterTimeFlies

Nevermind all those minor quibbles about propeller and engine design. You can't possibly knock an aircraft that has no need for fuel tanks!

August 3, 2008 | Unregistered Commentertrialsanderrors

Nah.. they've got 'control surfaces' and 'tanks and baggage' callouts in the diagram. I still wouldn't mind seeing a nice rudder on that thing, for something resembling stability and control..

April 21, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterBobcat

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>