Crazy Frogs!

Looks fun though.

on a side note that song is quite fun to play guitar to.

I hate to burst the bubble but I have a very strong background in fluid mechanics.

There are two lifting mechanisms - a lifting surface on one side and a lighter-than-air device (helium balloon, or whatever).

The lighter-than-air lift is fine in principle, but the lifting surface is a failure - having it only on one side means that the craft would have serious stability issues from the rolling moment being constantly generated on one side.

The propulsion system is only on one side as well, resulting in an equally problematic yawing moment which would cause serious dynamic stability issues.

I'm sorry, but it's going no further than the fancy design project that it is.

would have serious stability issues from the rolling moment being constantly generated on one side.

Isn't that what computers are for, they can adjust all the control surfaces and thrust on the fly to give a stable flight?
Like all those new fancy f22's and stealth bombers and s*** are all designed aerodynamically unstable to give better manoeuvrability, but computers let them fly straight.

Obviously you know what you're talking about, but there's a chance the c***s who designed this thought of the problems you mentioned too.

slap a JATO on it and I might be keen for a ride.

Oh the humanity.

^ oh the Hindenburg

keep it simple with hot air balloons

I wouldn't want to take that thing anywhere near mountains - I seriously doubt it'd handle any sort of high winds. Surely it wouldn't take much for it to get slammed into the side of a mountain?

God's wrath, presumably?

Pinky is just so mysterious, then he busts out this indepth knowledge of aerodynamics and fluid dynamics. I bet hes some kind of secret, black ops contractor who makes weapons of the future, while eating churros. Thats how it all comes together in my mind anyway.

As for the video, I'm immediately turned off by the pretentious use of an apostrophe to turn Zeplin into a trademarkable name, poor form Renault, poor form.

I want a jet-pack;
http://www.gizmag.com/first-commercially-available-jetpack/14423/

When I saw the thumbnail image to the video, I thought it was going to be something like this:

would have serious stability issues from the rolling moment being constantly generated on one side.

Isn't that what computers are for, they can adjust all the control surfaces and thrust on the fly to give a stable flight?
Like all those new fancy f22's and stealth bombers and s*** are all designed aerodynamically unstable to give better manoeuvrability, but computers let them fly straight.

Yeah you're right in part - bombers and fighter aircraft are inherrently unstable. Dynamic stability is plotted on the imaginary plane (Argand diagram), and commercial passenger aircraft (for example) are very stable in all axes.

It's easier to talk about what causes dyanamic stability (and removing these things takes it away) in a commercial passenger aircraft:
1. Dihedral angle: the angle that wings are at if you look at the aircraft nose on.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/SK_Dihedral_3.png

Now imagine in steady flight the plane rolls to one side - on this side the lifting surface might be perfectly horizontal which will produce more lift, whereas on the other side the angle is increased, therefore this wing is producing less lift. Therefore the system naturally wants to reach a state of equilibrium when perfectly horizontal. In actual fact, when you are flying, you will be rolling in some kind of sinusoidal motion.

2. Wing sweep angle. This works in the same way as dihedral, except in yaw. Also, wings can be forward swept for greater instability. Very large sweep angles can make yaw motion more unstable because the lift behaviour changes substantially in a delta configuration and other things like engine ducts become important.

http://quest.nasa.gov/aero/planetary/atmospheric/images/Wings17.gif

3. Distance between the primary lifting surface (main wing) and the horizontal tail-plane. If the tail-plane is further away AND the correct size (think of how far the tail-plane is away from the main wing on an A380) then you can have stable pitching dynamics. Like with lateral dynamics (roll) when you fly you are actually constantly pitching nose down, then nose up, then nose down at a very low frequency. Therefore it's better to sit over the main wing if you suffer motion sickness - where you move the least.

But with this concept aircraft - there is no control method. Note that bombers and fighter a/c are still symmetrical ;-) And if you believe in convergent evolution (Hai Billy!) then have a look at any animal that traverses fluid - dolphin, sharks, fish, birds, mosquitos, blah blah - they are all symmetrical too...

@Khel, hahahaha. Vivid imagination.

Yeah i realise that this design is completely out there, but is it out of the realm of possibility that the designers know that as well, and have taken it into account with their design? I mean, i hope these guys didnt just load up maya, then pick up a cheque from renault.

Nah, this is not designed by an engineer. This is like a final year project in an industrial design course at uni or something I reckon.

Could be.
http://www.vrcurassow.com/2dvrc/sscuracao/BlohmundVoss.html (one of the first google results obviously)
Asymmetrical aircraft aren't totally unheard of though, obviously didn't catch on.

Yeah but in that a/c the lifting surfaces are still symmetrical - only the fuselage sections aren't, and they aren't designed to be lifting surfaces, they are only designed to reduce drag.

In the concept flying boat thingy theres a lifting surface jutting out only to one side.