Are you saying the problem with the technology is the air intake, jets or fan we have today are not strong enough? Or where the air intake, jets or fan are?
That’s what I meant. You’ll notice that the sand is never disturbed.
The problem with hovercraft is that the amount of air needed is gigantic, and so disruptive that successful hovercraft work only on water. A few people have tried to create hovercars, but no good working vehicles, even prototypes, are known. Maglev is the best alternative, but needs a rail or guide of some sort.
I guarantee that no ducted fan vehicles are going to be on our roads. Star Wars-type vehicles are magic. I don’t know about fanwanks, but any society that can put anti-gravity into cheap cars could do a million other things that the movies don’t show.
Oh, BTW, that video says “Aerofex has redesigned hover vehicle technology so that it responds to a pilot’s natural sense of balance without the need for flight control software.” Again, that was Hiller’s design from the 1940s. You really should read up on Hiller. He was the real-world Tom Swift.
Who are you to question the power of The Force?
So if I read into some of the replies here and you can correct me if I’m not understanding it. The problem is not that air intake, jets or fan are not powerful is they are too powerful and that is problem?
So it not waiting 50 years or 100 years for new powerful air intake, jets or fan!! We have that!! But the problem is it is too powerful?
What about safety and noise? I read on google that could be other big problem why we are not using it.
I said “disruptive.” That takes in a lot of territory. They fail on land for large numbers of reasons. I bet fuel consumption would be awesome, as well.
I’ve often thought that you could have something like real-life pod races if the vehicles were some variety of wing-in-ground craft. Most are designed to take off and land on water but they would operate as well over flat sand or dry lake.
The other really remarkable thing about the Star Wars vehicles is that they can remain hovering even when parked. Either they require no power to remain hovering, or they have such vast internal reserves of energy that their owners don’t think twice about burning it even when parked. Either one would be a vast improvement over our technology.
Also if I understand it right and others can confirm this :eek:they are very loud and hard to steer.They move very erratic and prone to crash a lot.
Where the landspeeders had nove of those problems.
I’ll say it again. IF your video qualifies as a landspeeder, then so does every other single man hovercraft, and there are lots of them.
Strictly speaking hovering shouldn’t require an expenditure of energy- think of a piece of superconducting material over a magnet.
For all we know, they could be automatically putting down small, dampered strut landing gear that is not immediately apparent. Do we ever see completely underneath a vehicle when it is parked?
I’m wondering what the youtube one how long it will run before it runs out of power? you talking 30 minutes or hour?
Like the posters above said they are useful on water and used there. But on land people say they have major problems.So all you are seeing on youtube are crude prototypes of it.
People here said these crude prototypes date back to the 40’s !! So really nothing has change in engineering progress from 40’s to now on landspeeder. And probably never be landspeeder ever because of this.
**
**
And this.
Also if noise is also major problem they would be very loud. And you will need some thing to protect your ears.
This hovercraft does fine on land. They just need a flat surface.
That does not look any think like a landspeeder like in star wars.
It is even worse than crude prototypes youtube one I posted of landspeeder.
They tried to make a landspeeder it just very crude.
Well this is hovercraft and does not look any where close to landspeeder.
It looks exactly like what a real world hovercraft would look. A landspeeder runs on magic. That’s why you never see one in reality.
The higher off the ground you put your vehicle the more air you need and the more problems you run into. You want to get it just high enough and no higher. Notice that in the video you posted, the landing runners are barely skimming the ground. I suspect those are needed for more than just landing. I bet they lower the center of gravity in a useful way.
This is 94.53% irrelevant, but I want to mention Chester Anderson’s The Butterfly Kid, the best piece of SF psychedelia ever, in which Greenwich Village hippies use a ground effect vehicle to thwart an alien invasion. Have to wonder if Lucas read it.
Th first youtube video is guy trying to make a landspeeder !!
The other videos are hovercrafts and are not trying to make a landspeeder at all. It has it own use.
In the first video it is off the ground more and have two big fans.In the star wars movie they are driven forward by turbojets mounted on the vehicle’s’ rear. No no idea what keeps them off the ground.
The first video is just a hovercraft without the skirt. There’s nothing particularly new here aside from the control system.
This is true: A vehicle which required no power to maintain a hover doesn’t violate any laws of physics. We just don’t have the technology to make one that’s very practical. We might someday in the future, just not now.
No it more off the ground.The guy was trying to make landspeeder.It just in the real word for landspeeder to work they need fans ,air intakes or jets.