Interesting Ideas in Transportation that Failed to Take-Off

Justin Pottorff

12/17/2010

Humans are natural explorers and engineers always wanting to know what is over the next hill or what

happens when a particular idea is put into action. The field of transportation engineering is certainly no

exception to this rule. Since humankind began riding horses and designed the round wheel there have

been many good ideas that have benefitted humanity in general and perhaps even more ideas that for the

general public that just never went anywhere. This paper will discuss several ideas in transportation

engineering that either never got off the ground or have never caught on except in the imagination of

humans including transportation by Pneumatic tube, the car-plane, the atomic powered airplane, and the

atomic powered car.

Pneumatic tube transport

Pneumatic tubes use compressed air to push a canister through an airtight tube to its destination. Typically

the capsules pushed through the tubes are no more than three inches in diameter and carrying only a few

pounds of weight at most. One of the first recorded usages of pneumatic tubes as a method of Figure 1 (Hayhurst) Paris Pneumatic Post 1971

transportation was the installation of a network of pneumatic tubes in London for the delivery of mail

throughout the city. By the early 1900s, New York City had a system that could move canisters carrying

700 letters at nearly 30 mph through these tubes. (Hayhurst) Several other major American cities at this

time including Chicago and St. Louis also had a pneumatic tube system transporting mail. With the

exception of the Paris Post Network, most pneumatic post systems were abandoned around the 1950s as

freight trucks became available to transport mail and continue to do so today. Small scale systems are still

in use today in places such as banks or within an office to quickly move important documents and reduce

the chance of them being misplaced.

In 1870 Alfred Beach using his own money constructed a pneumatic subway tunnel all of a single block

long across from the New York City Hall. The car was driven forward at approximately ten miles an hour

by the pressure of 100,000 cubic feet of air produced by a large rotary blower. Rides were given to the

massed thousands for a quarter apiece. Despite the huge interest in the pneumatic subway the failed as it

had many shortcomings that the engineers of the day could not deal with including the difficulty of

controlling the pneumatic pressure to allow for the many stops made by subways, the high costs involved

with generating the required 100,000 cubic feet of air, and presumably the speed relative to the rest of the

subway system.("Transportation Futuristics") Since then others have tried to produce a pneumatic subway

system, however to date their attempts have not been successful.

It is rather unlikely that a pneumatic transportation system

would become economically viable when compared to other

transportation models. Firstly the transportation of large

objects requires the generation of unreasonably large

volumes of air to move any vehicle capable of transporting

any reasonable number of people. It is likely the most

efficient use of a pneumatic transportation system would be

in a configuration similar to that of a subway to minimize the

changes in grade the pneumatic system would have to

negotiate. Even a single subway car from the 1870s required

around 100,000 cubic feet of air and any subway train would be comprised of multiple cars requiring

even more air volume to be moved to push the subway cars down the tracks. Braking at the regular station

stops would be something of an issue, however it is likely that a braking system could be manufactured to

deal with the constant pressure that the subway train would be subject to.

Figure 2 (Transportation Futuristics) 1870 Pneumatic subway

The Flying Car

The merging of the personal

automobile and the airplane has been around nearly as long as either concept had been around. In 1917,

Glenn Curtis a successful aircraft engineer, produced the first working flying car called the Autoplane.

("Web Urbanist") The Autoplane never achieved true sustained flight, but it was the beginnings of an

ongoing fascination with merging flight with the freedoms granted by the personal automobile. From the

end of the First World War to today, several companies have experimented with their own flying car

designs; however most of these designs have suffered with the faults of being clumsy in the air and

sluggish on the ground and have never been massed produced. ("Web Urbanist") Flying cars have several

issues when compared to airplanes or cars alone. Some of these issues include the high cost when

compared to traditional cars, the potential safety issues to the people in the car-plane and the people

around the vehicle, and the difficulties of getting into the air. Based on the listings of several different

companies developing and selling flying cars the low-end cost of these flying cars end up at

approximately $80,000 and can go significantly higher. At this time flying cars are still out of the price

range of the public in general, though as the technology matures the price of these vehicles will decrease

bringing them closer into the reach of the general public. Secondly, a flying car presents its own potential

problems to the user and those around them. When driving a car differences in the control panel and

driving column between car makes and models are easily adjusted for as most ground vehicles of a

similar class handle similarly. However, differences in the controls and control surfaces between makes

and models of flying car would likely have significant impacts upon the way the car handles. This is

conjecture based upon the differences between different airplanes and the way the controls, airframe, and

Figure 3 ("Web Urbanist") Curtis Autoplane

flight control surfaces are setup. Beyond the simple potential for instability for the people in the car-plane

they also represent a potential risk to those around them, with the majority of this risk being to others in

the air. An example of this risk to the pilot and passengers is illustrated by the case of the Dreyfuss

Convaircar. Pictured above, the Convair vehicle was a lightweight fiberglass car body that could seat four

and run independently of the snap on airplane assembly that included the airplane engine, propellers, and

wings that when not in use were simply towed behind the vehicle. During one of the test flights the

vehicle crashed killing the pilot and scaring off investors that were just days before receiving the overall

vehicle concept very well. ("Web Urbanist")

The risk comes less from the owners of the vehicle, in the sense that everyone behind the wheel of a car

or yoke of a plane are dangerous directing a large heavy vehicle, who are supposed to obtain pilot’s

licenses and more dealing with people who might steal a vehicle and go for a joy ride with it. Also It is

likely that many owners of car-planes will be disappointed at the need for them, from either the

manufacturer or the government, to drive to an airport to use their vehicle’s aerial capabilities. The

regulations for these car planes, will likely increase if these vehicles become more popular, perhaps

removing some of the air of freedom that these vehicles seem to show. Currently though these vehicles

have literally taken off it is unlikely that these vehicles will in the short term become a serious

transportation mode and is more likely to stay in the realm of the rich and the hobbyist.

Dymaxion Car

The Dymaxion Car was one of the many interesting creations of the well known Buckminster Fuller. The

car was a somewhat teardrop shaped, 20 foot long aluminum bodied automobile. It sat upon three wheels

and was steered from the single rear wheel. The first of three vehicles constructed by Fuller, pictured

below, was built in 1933, it weighed around 1600lbs, carried 10 passengers plus the driver, and had an

apparent top speed of about 120 mph. Despite the revolutionary design, or because of it, the Dymaxion

vehicles all had a rather poor relationship with accidents, this appears to be constant through the various

sources, though some sources contradict each other, likely a byproduct of some of Fuller’s secrecy on the

project and the likelihood of destroyed records. The first vehicle made its first real trip to Manhattan

where it ferried around Fuller and H.G. Wells, only to crash in a well publicized event outside of the

Chicago World’s Fair in 1933. ("Washed Ashore")

Figure 4 ("Washed Ashore") Dymaxion Car #1

The second vehicle was built in early 1934, the original buyers after the crash of the first car no longer

wished to purchase it. Fuller then sold the vehicle to some of his workers whereupon several years later it

was then pressed into service as a chicken coop. The third car upon which Fuller spent the last of the

family inheritance upon was also completed in time for the World’s Fair in 1934. Later this vehicle was

sold to a friend of Fuller’s, who then resold the vehicle after which the vehicle was sold and resold a

number of times before disappearing. Ten years after the first vehicle’s crash it is destroyed in a fire and

Fuller works to redesign the vehicle, but due to wartime constraints either chose not to or was unable to

rebuild the vehicle. Now 75 years after the last of Fuller’s cars was assembled a British architect has

commissioned a new Dymaxion Car. This vehicle was stting on display at the Ivorypress Art + Books

gallery in Madrid through October of 2010, the vehicle’s current location is unknown. ("New York

Times")

The Dymaxion car was an revolutionary idea in the 1930s with its emphasis on a highly streamlined

shape to reduce wind drag and a rather fuel efficient design, the later cars were not as efficient as the first

but could manage about 35 mpg or double the typical car of the time. Despite the efficiencies of the

design for its time, the design is nearly 80 years out of date with regard to materials and style. Secondly,

over the past seventy years there have been a number of similar vehicles produced and placed on the

market that have failed to be mass produced. Finally it has been reported that even in calm conditions the

vehicle, undoubtedly in no small part due to the design had issues with shuddering from side to side, and

this issue was only exacerbated in windy conditions.

Figure 5 ("New York Times") Dymaxion Car #4

Atomic Powered Aircraft

It was 1950 and “Popular Mechanics” was telling the American people that the atom was going to replace

Spot as mankind’s best friend. ("Military.com") In 1944 the US Army Air Force began an experimental

program to produce an operational atomic powered bomber. After extensive testing of different reactor

systems a Direct-Cycle Configuration reactor system known as HTRE-3 was chosen as the most efficient

method of transferring energy from the reactor. Work on the reactor shielding systems then began,

initially it appears that the engineers responsible would have shielded the reactor in ways similar to

traditional shielding, that is placing all of the reactor shielding on the reactor i self. This was found to be

ineffective due to the need for the aircraft to shift in flight. Instead the shielding was divided between the

reactor and the cockpit and crew compartments. If all of the reactor shielding had been placed around the

reactor there would have been effectively no radiation escaping the powerplant, instead with the shielding

split in what is known as “Shadow Shielding” there was a noticeable amount of radiation escaping the

plant and contaminating the area around it. By this time it was late 1951 and the only ready airframe that

was large enough to carry the reactor and all of the associated peripherals and radiation shielding was the

Convair B-36 Peacemaker. The B-36 was a large aircraft, in fact it was larger than the B-52s that are still

in active service today. ("Global Aircraft") The US Air Force was not alone in the quest for an atomic

powered bomber as the Soviet Union also had a project underway. By 1957 the single Nuclear Test

Aircraft (NTA) had gathered information from the 47 test flights, however the funding and enthusiasm for

a nuclear powered aircraft had waned. During this period of time other research groups had successfully

tested nuclear powered missiles and ramjet engines, far easier to produce than a manned nuclear powered

aircraft. By 1961 the nation had set their sights on the stars and President Kennedy cut all funding for

atomic powered aircraft after nearly $1 billion had been devoted to the attempt.

Ultimately Atomic Powered Aircraft

(APA) did not succeed due to a

variety of reasons. It was only in part

the failure of the day’s technology to

cope with the assorted dangers of

atomic power. Instead social and

political factors coupled with a

continuing change of priorities and

objectives in the organizations that

were conducting the research. In the

1950’s the social and political

attitude towards nuclear power was

in fact quite a positive one. The goal

seen by many in the military was to produce an aircraft that literally had unlimited range and an

endurance equal to the supplies packed aboard and the limits to the sanity of the crew. Furthermore due to

events outside the control of the departments responsible for research of the APA, such as the launch of

the Soviet Sputnik satellite and politicians promising results that simply could not be met with the

technology of the day, in 1950 they were asked to have a flyable APA by 1957 at the latest even though

their own research was as the time not capable of producing equipment for flight purposes. In 1959 the

program was finally given a clear statement of purpose, however by that time it was already too late. The

need for aircraft for strategic deterrence had decreased as ICBMs had become both more accurate and

politically acceptable than APAs as the US space program kicked into high gear to meet President

Kennedy’s goal of a man on the moon. (Bikowicz)

There has been some talk of APAs in today’s world of rising fuel prices and uncertainties about the total

untapped fuel reserves of the world. However some serious questions arise from this such as the effects of

an APA hijacked by terrorists and used as a makeshift dirty-bomb. Additionally as the US Airforce found

out it is nearly impossible to provide enough shielding at the reactor to completely eliminate radiation

from exiting near the power plant, this is certainly not a good thing when passengers embark or debark

from the craft, much less for the various maintenance personnel responsible for keeping the airplane in

Figure 6 (Colon)

working order. Finally it should be noted that nuclear reactors are large, in fact some suggest that an

atomic powered passenger liner might need to be twice the size of a 747 or larger to accommodate the on-

board reactor. (Frenkel) These large atomic powered passenger airplanes would likely require airports to

provide additional radiation shielding to protect passengers still in the terminal and require the airports to

construct special boarding platforms in addition to the platforms already present. (Frenkel)

Atomic Powered Car

Figure 7 (Bellows)

In the 1950s the sky was literally the limit for nuclear power as designers worked to build an airplane that

could be powered with the miracle of the splitting atom. Ford Motor Company however, didn’t look to

the sky, but instead looked to their mainstay of automobile production. They proposed what is likely still

the most ambitious automobile concept to date the Ford Nucleon, a vehicle powered not by gasoline but

powered instead by a miniaturized atomic reactor in the rear of the vehicle. The automobile designers at

Ford anticipated each vehicle being able to travel as much as 5000 miles on a single reactor charge,

depending on the reactor that would be installed into the car. (Bellows) As with many vehicles in that

time frame the Nucleon looks like it was part of a flying saucer out of 1950’s science fiction.

Unfortunately or fortunately for this design the miniaturized nuclear reactors and the lightened radioactive

shielding that the design team at Ford had been waiting for never materialized and the anti-nuclear

sentiments growing in the 1960s put the nail in the lead lined coffin for this very ambitious project. Now

despite the dangers of radioactivity it is likely due to the small amount of atomic material present in the

reactor it is unlikely that even in the worst circumstances possible that a car crash involving a

containment breach would “only” produce a little radiation and would not melt down similarly to

Chernobyl.

An atomic powered car is perhaps still a viable idea. The US Navy has operated many warships over the

last 60 years with nuclear atomic power plants and they have a perfect safety record. (Bellows) New

reactor designs have become safer and more efficient and there have been advances in our understanding

of atomic power and the radiation shielding that needs to go along with it. However there are still some

serious issues to consider, given the care that some people give to their cars today it is possible that this

would not be the case with an atomic powered vehicle. Additionally considering the opposition new

nuclear power plants receive today in the political spectrum, regardless of their overall safety record it

would appear that atomic powered cars are a thing of the past. Perhaps our vehicles will be atomic

powered in a different way, instead of having a reactor in each and every car which might be a potential

source of radioactive materials which would be a boon for many terrorists more electricity might be

generated through atomic power and that electricity might be used to power many of the electric cars that

may be on the road in the foreseeable future. The idea of an atomic powered car caught the eye of many

50 years ago and while the idea is still viable, the technology difficulties, the general anti-nuclear political

Figure 8("Dream Car-58 Ford Nucleon")

sentiments, and the realities of the world that we live in today make this idea very unlikely to progress

anywhere and perhaps that is indeed for the best.

Many innovative concepts in many fields fail due to either the technology of the day being insufficiently

advanced to create an actual working model while even more innovative ideas fail to gain widespread

acceptance and use due to the high cost associated with actually producing the product when compared to

the costs of the alternative that is already in service. Many of the ideas presented here are indeed partially

viable even if the entire concept perhaps pushes the current limits of technology above and beyond what

is currently possible. Other times the technology is available, but failures in the past have so jaded the

public and potential investors that they are unwilling to look beyond those failures at the new possibilities

that technology allows.

References Hayhurst, . "The Pneumatic Post of Paris." The Pneumatic Post of Paris. The France & Colonies Philatelic

Society of Great Britain, 01 01 2010. Web. 1 Dec 2010.

<http://www.cix.co.uk/~mhayhurst/jdhayhurst/pneumatic/book1.html>.

"Pneumatic Transportation." Transportation Futuristics. Regents of California, 01 01 2010. Web. 1 Dec

2010. <http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/news_events/futuristics/pt/>.

"Drive the Friendly Skies: The History (and Future) of Flying Cars." Web Urbanist. Web Urbanist, n.d.

Web. 1 Dec 2010. <http://weburbanist.com/2010/01/22/drive-the-friendly-skies-the-history-and-future-

of-flying-cars/>.

"http://www.washedashore.com/projects/dymax/." Washed Ashore. N.p., 01 01 2010. Web. 1 Dec

2010. <http://www.washedashore.com/projects/dymax/>.

"Treats for Gear Heads." The New York Times. New York Times, 19 09 2010. Web. 1 Dec 2010.

<http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/20/arts/20iht-design20.html?_r=2>.

"Atomic Airpower: The American Quest for a Nuclear-Powered Plane." Military.com. Military.com, 2010.

Web. 17 Dec 2010. <http://www.military.com/Content/MoreContent1/?file=cw_atomicairpower>.

"Global Aircraft." Global Aircraft. Global Aircraft, 2006. Web. 1 Dec 2010.

<http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/>.

Colon, Raul. "Flying on Nuclear, The American Effort to Built a Nuclear Powered Bomber ." The Aviation

History On-Line Museum.. The Aviation History On-Line Museum., 06 08 2006. Web. 1 Dec 2010.

<http://www.aviation-history.com/articles/nuke-american.htm>.

Bikowicz, . "The Decay of the Atomic Powered Aircraft Program." Atomic Engines. Atomic Engines, 1993.

Web. 1 Dec 2010. <http://www.atomicengines.com/ANP_politics.html>.

Frenkel, . "Resuscitating the Atomic Airplane: Flying on a Wing and an Isotope." Scientific American.

Scientific American, December 5, 2008. Web. 17 Dec 2010.

Bellows, . "The Atomic Automobile." Damn Interesting. Damn Interesting, 27 August 2006. Web. 17 Dec

2010. <http://www.damninteresting.com/the-atomic-automobile>.

"Dream Car-58 Ford Nucleon." Web. 1 Dec 2010.

<http://www.shorey.net/auto/American/Ford/htmltree.html>.