#3. Reinventing the Airplane
We get the concept, that two massive jet turbines could substitute the lifting power of wings with sheer engine force. And we can also concede that this design, goofy as it is, might be a predecessor of the modern jet. But try as we might to see the noble face of scientific advancement here, all we can make out is two flying toilet paper roll holders.
And also, if your lift and thrust is being entirely supplied by two giant turbines -- why keep the little propeller down there? Surely it's just to spite birds at that point.
If enough propellers are smashed together at great speed, then propulsion is created.
Ah, we see: Because of the scientific property of propellers to be "really neat."
Well, if three propellers are good, then four propellers must be gooder:
"I can't see a damn thing."
Yeah! That's so cool! Those two propellers in the back aren't even doing anything; they're totally free to just be awesome, all the time! Oh man, what if you could like flip a propeller sideways and make it really, really giant and-
OK, somebody's either officially fucking with Popular Science, or their new tech editor that year was Mark Twain.
#2. Ball-Based Means of Transportation
We like balls as much as the next guy -- well, except maybe Pretty Gary (he's a basketball fan, guys; get your mind out of the gutter) -- but if you're already in a hilariously tiny car inside the giant ball, why voluntarily hamster yourselves? Why not just take a cue from Pretty Gary, own up to who you really want to be and drive that hilariously tiny car around with pride?
"U.S. Army: Taking out bald eagles and beavers ... together."
It was so nice of Popular Science to not only illustrate this hypothetical vehicle, but to also point out exactly what's wrong with it and how to exploit that flaw to easily defeat it. Here they've both debuted and closed the book forever on the Terror Globe in one fell swoop: It's obviously stuck in that trench.
Because that is its one and only weakness: slight depressions.
Well, at least Popular Science seems to be catching on that "slap a ball on that bitch" is not always Step 2 in the design process ...
It's every step.
W-what the bouncing fuck? Planes were already a thing! They flew through the air just like that -- way better, in fact, because they weren't being weighed down by a giant clown ball!
Although, let's be fair, look at the tagline: "Queer Vehicles Inventors Produce." Even in an era when they painstakingly illustrated serious, be-jawlined men flitting about on kite-sleds without the slightest hint of irony, Popular Science didn't buy this shit for a second.
#1. Reinventing the Helicopter
You've seen those maple seed pods gently drifting down on the spring breeze, right? They're beautiful, elegant machines designed purely by nature. They are delicate organic wings, perfectly counterweighted and angled to spin with just the right momentum to coast gracefully along the wind itself. Seeing one dance in the air is somehow both painful and joyous, a reminder of simpler times when the world around you held infinite wonder.
Yeah, Science put a gun on one of those things and mounted a grinning psychopath in the center.
This is the face of progress.
"I'm a serial aerial vomiter."
Its hobbies are "spinning" and "shooting," and its only dislikes are "running out of bullets" and "steering even a little bit."
Finally, a vehicle for the Escher in all of us.
We already know about the "more propeller" school of aircraft design, so we only have one question about this wholly unnecessary complication of the helicopter: Where does the person go? Is he crammed into that tiny box? Is this a battlecraft for Chinese acrobats or method acting mimes?
Oh hey, we completed our PopSci bingo card.
When your aircraft needs four giant propellers and a balloon just to get airborne, maybe it's time to cut back on the wrought-iron metalwork, yeah?
The previous issue had a giant floating wine bottle.
We're not even sure what to say about this one.
Does this even count as an attempt to reinvent the helicopter? Because as near as we can tell, this bright red bulb hot-glued to a corkscrew is only staying aloft through the magic of Christmas Cheer. Was this ever a theory -- that if you could just spin a wine opener fast enough, you could hover? Because that sounds less like aeronautical science and more like a mean trick to play on drunk people at parties. We swear to God, if that was anybody else piloting this thing, we would write it off entirely.
But that's clearly Nikola Tesla in there, so we guess we'll just go ahead and start reading up for the written portion of our magic corkscrew license test.
Once described as a "more cynical version of Stephen Fry," you can find more deconstructive criticism from Adam on subjects such as how to save men's fashion and what your children will all (probably) want to be when they grow up at his site. You can also read the rest of his Cracked articles here.
For more ridiculous predictions, check out 18 Hilarious Modes of Transport Science Gave Up On Too Soon and 6 Insanely Awesome Things The 1900s Thought We'd Have by Now.
If you're pressed for time and just looking for a quick fix, then check out Proof That 'Demolition Man' Was a Visionary Film