u/ukarna4

Big ships are too thick to fill them with rooms that all have a window. Instead of using the central parts for common space, fill them with cargo, like shipping containers or maybe bulk cargo.

Have few corridors across the width, on ends and middle. Restaurant might be the biggest common space. Gym area for stretching+jumping+short runs on soft surface and sauna too, below water line.

This is more for slow travel from a to b than cruise. Can be more useful time than in a plane with low oxygen, ear trouble and small sitting space. Both can have satellite internet and maybe near ground also a microwave link to horizon, increasing capacity.

Everything happens within the circles. Every window is a circle instead of square or rectangle. Even the panel has 1 or more circles that handle it's functions. Usually there would be 1 big circle and multiple smaller ones, at least with the common aspect ratio 16/9 that 1920 x 1080 screens have.

Downsides are almost too obvious to mention. Upsides include that it is fun-looking, window positions are easier to see at a glance and one rotation knob could rotate all or some windows to arbitrary angles without causing overlaps or underlaps, unlike with rectangles. It would be like scifi-movie idea of an alien computer, wonderfully nuts or bonkers.

One user-space software running on existing OS ( Like windows, Linux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD ) on existing desktop environment software( like KDE, Gnome, XFCE, Cinnamon ) can have something close to this, at least on full screen. May work best with games. It just has circular areas where the content is neatly fitted. It may be possible to have circular windows on existing DEs alongside rectangular. As far as compatibility is concerned, software with square window can run on fully circular DE inside a circle, but it is not ideal. Software meant for circular DE could be compatible with existing DEs, at least with some future hypothetical version if not now.

Much harder thing would be a truly circular computer monitor, not circular cut on top of rectangle, but every edge pixel has equal distance to the edge of the device( maybe 2 cm ). Can't say how many would be willing to pay for it. Maybe crowdfunding is ideal for it...

100 small containers, maybe 1 or 2 cm wide, attached to a belt that feeds to a sample taking mechanism. At the start of the sample taking, one side has the empty containers on a box and during the sample taking, the other side gets the filled containers to a different box, maybe on a spool or reel.

One way to fill a container is to first pump vacuum in each of them before loading and then sample is taken by filling that vacuum. Each container needs some mechanism on itself. First, pressure difference keeps the seal, then some spring loaded mechanism or rubber keeps the sample in. Maybe a screw. If a flying drone is taking the samples, have to account for altitude changes.

Other way is to have a compressor or piston that changes the air in a container at some moment.

Vacuum method needs simpler mechanism on the sample taker but the loader-unloader mechanism needs a vacuum pump. 10 % vacuum may be good enough.

The containers may be stainless steel, brass, aluminum or plastic.

The sample taking platform may be a drone, aircraft, boat or car. Also, if a poisonous cloud is expected to go over a spot, the sample taker could be in one place. Platform's exhaust fumes may complicate chemical analysis, unless it is powered by batteries at least on the moment of sample taking or moving in a certain way.

Sample taking could be triggered by a rudimentary timer mechanism, but more likely the platform's computer, based on location, some basic sensor that is much simpler than what the unloader can have or image analysis. If no GPS or any other radio navigation is available, flying drone's exact location at any sample taking's time may be determined after the landing by geolocating 4K ultra-HD video taken by the drone on multiple directions.

Many places have ferries transporting heavy trucks, where people may talk about getting a bridge or tunnel but they can't afford it. Similarly made middle-size ship could take any helicopter on it's deck, when that deck is the highest place on the ship, at least during landing and takeoff. Ship's exhaust pipe may turn 90 degrees so it is horizontal and not a safety hazard for rotors. Same with radar mast. During landing in fog, a different lower-placed radar or radars on many sides can prevent collisions.

This kind of ship may rely on weather predictions so that helis do not use it during high wind or waves. Not every ship has to be usable in every condition, so some breaks can be ok, maybe even if they take half the time, depending on situation.

Can be used, for example, for ferry flights of helicopters that do not have enough range to fly directly across sea. For both moving them and for charging or refueling. Can be used as helipad next to land that has only rough terrain. Also, no need to move fuel or generators on land.

Flight deck can have optionally rising remote-controlled water+foam sprayers and 50 hole-grids for pumping seawater on a fire and washing leaking kerosene, petrol or gasoline overboard. In case of multiple tons of lithium-ion battery burning, there could be a vacuum-insulated tank of liquid argon. Network of pipes, maybe same that can move seawater, can release argon upwind from a fire, by the ship's computer opening and closing the right set of valves to route that argon to the correct set of hole-grids.

Can have many fuel tanks so that different amounts of different types of fuel can be taken according to situation. Lots of diesel anyway for the ship itself. If a tank's content is changed, it may need washing, or maybe some mixing is ok for the engines used.

The electric helicopters or hybrid-drive helicopters may have batteries that are in external pods, so they may be changed instead of charged, and moved below deck by elevator or lift.

What happens if we keep increasing seats or cargo capacity of a helicopter? Imagine a graph where number of seats or cargo capacity is in the horizontal x-axis and the manufacturing cost of the helicopter is in the vertical y-axis. The line goes up, but probably not in a direct line. Many factors to consider. Which way does the line curve from left to right? Up or down? First in one direction but after some number of seats or some amount of cargo capacity, starting to go to a different direction, when some factor becomes dominant?

If we try to extrapolate in a simple way from price and capacity of cheap+small helicopter to capacity of a big helicopter and look at the price, comparing 2 very different helicopters, it is flawed, but in which direction, is hard to say because there could be arguments for both, on both directions, factors that pull in different directions. Usually bigger things tend to be cheaper per capacity, up to some limit. This is related to economies of scale. Firstly, a helicopter needs just one set of avionics and price of that is divided for all seats. Complexity of engine does not rise directly with size. Bigger piston engine has bigger cylinders and maybe more cylinders too. Bigger gas turbine has bigger blades and maybe more blades too. Bigger engine is more energy efficient. Bigger rotor blades are aerodynamically more efficient.

If we take as examples 2 helicopters, first the cheap+small can be Robinson R44 and secondly the costly+big can be Boeing CH-47 Chinook.

R44 price is about 500 000 and Chinook price is about 60 000 000 $ or €.

r44 cruise speed: 202 km/h chinook cruise speed: 291 km/h

So, r44 has 69% of chinook's cruise speed. Is that so slow that it is unacceptable?

r44 range: 560 km
Chinook range: 740 km

Usually it would be better to use a plane for distances like that.

r44 takes 4 and chinook takes 33 or 58 people.

R44 price per seat capacity: 125000 € or $ For Chinook: 1 818 181 or 1 034 482 € or $

So, a chinook costs 14 or 8 times more per seat compared to r44.

How about cargo masses?

Chinook: 10 tons ( how often really? ) r44: 339 kg

r44: 1474 € or $ per kg chinook: 5511 € or $ per kg

So, a chinook costs 3,7 or 3.7 times more per cargo kg than r44.

Seat capacities are related to capacity of low density cargo (pillows, mattresses, bread, cookies, biscuits, thermal insulation, empty bottles...).

So, some other factor seem to greatly outweigh economies of scale when helicopter size increases. Chinook is still 23 times lighter than Airbus A380 ( at max masses ), so one would think that chinook is not almost too big, as far as physics is concerned.

r44 directly extrapolated to 33 seats would cost 4 125 000 $ or €.

There are reasons to assume that it might cost even less. If speed and range were same what chinook has, cost would greatly increase.

Depends on production numbers too, how many are made. Not very mass production for helis anyway.

Both over 1000 build. How common the engines and avionics parts are, is a different question.

There are just under 400 Guimbal Cabri G2 helis made and it costs 500 000 € or $.

Even unique airplanes are not always super expensive. At least with propellers and without internal pressure.

If a heli is designed and built from the start to fly slower, it is more energy efficient per traveled km and per hovered time and needs less power for same kg capacity, down to some limit where wind starts to be issue.

max altitudes: R44: 4,300 m Chinook: 6,100 m

700 m or 1500 m altitude is enough for most routes. Some car engine or - if extra water cooling can be rigged and not too heavy - even some boat engine might be better when there is no need to go high. And could use normal fuel, instead of some airplane special. If the heli is big enough, diesel could work. Some airplanes use diesel. Could have 2 or more engines in one rotor shaft if there is no big enough right kind of engine on the market. That also improves safety. Many helis have 2 gas turbines in one shaft and can land with 1.

Let's compare engines and power-to-weight ratios:

Lycoming O-540 : 1.1 or 1,1 kW/kg (1 in R44) Honeywell T55 gas turbine : 9.8 or 9,8 kW/kg (2 in chinook) Lamborghini V12 : 2.7 or 2,7 kW/kg eHelix SPM177-165 electric motor: 25 kW/kg

Designed-slow helicopter can manage with less power. Lesser range means that weight of fuel can be replaced with weight of engine. Gas turbine is very costly to make and use compared to piston engines and electric motors, per power.

Besides R44, there are many other helis and other types of craft to consider as examples for extrapolations, for example jetson one.

Westray to Papa Westray flight with 2.7 km or 2,7 km distance is the shortest commercial flight route. Even batteries would be enough.

Heli has more potential for ridiculously short routes because more choice with landing spots. If lithium-ion battery lasts ½ hour, R44's 202 km/h speed would bring it 100 km away or 50 km there and back. Less with safety margins and mass. Maybe fly with wind higher and against wind lower because wind speed increases with height. The slower the heli is, the more this kind of maneuvering matters.

Even with 100 km/h speed, compared to cars and boats, heli has great advantage when going over swamp or multiple beaches, like island on a lake on an island on sea. Or from ship to inland or ship to ship over land.

1 or 2 rotor helis need to constantly change blade pitch, even within one rotation, using swashplate. That causes enormous strain on the blades and reduces their lifespan. Heli drones usually have 4, 6 or 8 rotors with fixed-pitch blades or pitch is altered only slowly when rotor's power is altered. 8-rotor heli could stay flying with 1 rotor off and maybe 2 rotors off in opposite sides if load is light. Some of the rotors could be powered with central diesel engine via hydraulics and some by electric motors with hybrid drive. Or every rotor could have piston gas or petrol engine and electric motor on the same shaft.

Trying to make it VTOL-plane would be a total mess. Some try, and with great development cost some kind of succeed.

Every patch of chinook's wall is made with enormous effort and is precious, despite price of that aluminum being only a small fraction of the cost. Otherwise it would weigh more, maybe too much more. At least could not take as much cargo and fuel. One might say that it is so costly because we need to be very very sure that Chinook's wall does not have any defects. But chinook can take bullets without falling and fixed later. Every heli could have lots of test flight in drone mode with only water or sand inside, over uninhabited areas. Then first months used only for hauling cheap cargo without anyone inside (or cargo that can survive crash, like gold). Metal inspection methods are more advanced than in 1961 when chinook started: x-ray, ultrasound and whatnot. Maybe interpreted by software. If defect found, remove that part and do again.

If needing to haul just cargo, maybe better to have big drone that hangs maybe 10 ton load below with ropes and does not have any internal space or has very little. Or maybe have much smaller internal space with hull that has equal mass to chinook's hull because it was assembled with cheaper methods that lead to heavier mass, but still have the same cargo capacity as chinook at least for dense cargo.

Many boats are made of aluminum or glass fiber. Boats are also safety critical. If a boat leaks and sinks, there is a high chance that someone dies, especially with cold water. Who knows, if helicopter's hull were made with same methods as boat's, maybe the weight would be bearable that way also. Boat needs to take waves in water which is 800 x denser than air. Heli needs to be able to take overly fast landing without breaking. Unlike with boats and pressured jets, no concern about leaking - other than fuel tanks - with helis.

Many airplane models have fabric covered tubes in large parts of hull and wings. Maybe that fabric in heli could be same as with hot air balloons, nomex for fire safety. Stiff carbon fiber has unbearable price, but carbon fiber fabric is used in household fire blankets. Maybe have kevlar inside, between 2 fire resistant fabrics, to provide pull-strength.

Helis are supposed to work inside fog, haboob and raised sand or snow. Then is better to fly with 3d-model of the terrain rather than looking out the windows. Sometimes flying with thermal camera image is best. That is why it could be ok to have smaller windows or less windows and put some computer monitors on that aluminum wall inside (maybe kevlar first) and (radar) antennas outside. That transparent material is not taking as much force per weight as aluminum and all the aluminum around the windows needs to take most of that force or windows are even heavier. Smaller windows reduce cost and increase range. If someone is getting paid to fly a heli, small window is small issue. Charles Lindbergh flew across Atlantic with only a periscope for front view.

The main idea is to have cheaper heli with 20, 30 or 40 seats, that is cheaper to make and use because of slower speed and lesser range and maybe because of fixed-pitch blades in 8 rotors, instead of 1 or 2 rotors with swashplates and maybe because of different assembly methods and maybe because of more automation in assembly and use.

Most numbers are from wikipedia or derived from those numbers.