Slashdot Mirror

Paul Moller has been trying for 40 years now. Sometimes it turns out first-mover advantage is no advantage at all.

He's 82 years old. He probably won't live long enough to see the first commercial "flying taxi" flight, even if Bell or Boeing or Airbus eventually succeed.

Molller anyone seen Moller. http://www.moller.com/

This guy couldn't catch a break after decades of trying to raise capital and build a flying car.

That is because he is doing it wrong. His "flying car" is really a drivable airplane. The best it can do is go from airport-to-airport, and then drive from there. You could achieve the same result, cheaper and safer, by just renting a car at the arrival airport, or (even easier) taking Uber to your final destination.

The billionaires are more sensible. Quadcopters are clearly a better technology for this application. They can fly city-center-to-city-center, and you won't need a pilot's license to fly in one.

Well, I'm not an aviation professional either, and that might be the problem. Non-aviation-professionals underestimate all of the issues in making this work. Hey, we sent a man to the moon, right? How difficult could it be to make a flying car?

I would have been less sarcastic if they had shown an operating prototype rather than a 3D rendering. A 3D rendering means they haven't started to see if they can really address all of the issues.

Oh, and Moller is about to make their version, too! Since about 1950.

This guy couldn't catch a break after decades of trying to raise capital and build a flying car.

Suddenly, a bunch of dot.com billionaires are building them right and left.

This guy has been working on a flying car for like 50 years.

Funny thing is, his car is the coolest looking of them all.

It's not always 20 years. http://moller.com/dev/index.ph... has been 5 years away from a commercial Skycar for about 50 years now.

There are drivable helicopters. Though I would think of http://moller.com/dev/index.ph... as what people think of, a car that would blend into traffic that can fly, or the other Mollers that are less car looking.

"First rule in government spending: why build one when you can have two at twice the price?" S.R. Hadden

Does anyone think that Moller has been embarssed enough lately?

Reminds of a mini Moller Skycar M400 , except it works. I've been following the M400 since about 1990 in hopes it might actually make it somewhere, unfortunately, this is as good at it has gotten. never understood why the last decade in computer advances haven't lent something towards stability for that crazy thing. Maybe they should take a lesson from this. I've given up on Moller's sky car, yet things like this make me still dream about it. Oh well...

Reminds of a mini Moller Skycar M400 M400, except it works. I've been following the M400 since about 1990 in hopes it might actually make it somewhere, unfortunately, this is as good at it has gotten. I've never understood why the last decade in computer advances haven't lent something towards stability for that crazy thing. Maybe they should take a lesson from this. I've given up on Moller's sky car, yet things like this make me still dream about it. Oh well...

Guess Hyundai hasn't heard of the Moller flying car:
http://youtu.be/rgjug_0OAF0 youtube video.

http://moller.com/dev/ company website.

still in R&D but getting closer.

http://moller.com/dev/

We've been 5 years away from the flying car for the last 30 years.

from his movie "The Day The Earth Stood Still" and it seems to me this was the first big film with a flying saucer and ever since then alien spacecraft were all lampshade design with pulse warble engines (that go "woo woo woo..." sound when traveling through the vacuum of space). OK maybe splitting hairs, Wise was the director so maybe not technically "his movie." Brilliant film, I still enjoy watching it. And to think Robert Wise directed a completely different film about 12 years later, The Sound of Music.

Going back to the USAF flying saucer, I didn't RTFA, reminded me of the Avrocar was designed for VTOL handling and highspeed and high altitude flight. However, designers learned the hard way of aerodynamics (they accidently developed hovercraft technology which is very useful for other vehicle applications). Paul Moller of Moller International and the controversial Moller Skycar he has been working for decades (currently his website http://www.moller.com/ vectors to http://4domfay.mrslove.com/), some years ago he published a paper on fan diameter vs. power. I found this AIAA (I think) in 1980s where he showed mathematical equations describing engine power to liftfan diameter and why the Avrocar was doomed from the start. His equations showed most efficient diameter for vertical flying is helicopter but helicopters require complex control mechanics. Moller's equations also showed Avrocar did not have enough liftfan diameter so no matter how much power they applied, the Avrocar would never get out of ground effect. Disclaimer: I'm regurgitating memories from the 20th century.

I also remember when he had his Skycar mockup on display for an airshow of sorts at Yolo County airport (also of Skydance Skydiving which I was making some jumps same day). I looked closely at the chips of some of the electronics and noticed they were 74xxx series and not milspec 54xxx, I asked Moller why consumer grade. His reply was for the mockup there is no need and reason why his skycar will sell for only $100,000 and not $100 million is Lockheed has only one customer, the government, which has no interest in maintaining costs. However, this was late 1980s, we're still waiting for the skycar.

Now that is worth considering! I hope Moller reads /.

Maybe even flying cars!

We already have flying cars, but maybe only 1K civilians choose to afford to use them on a regular basis: they're called helicopters, and if people really wanted them in the form of cars badly enough (like Moller et. al.), they could do that, but like the helicopters, it's a question of economics and socio-political reality, not science, technology or invention per-se.

Just the obligatory link to the Moller Skycar... http://www.moller.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=49&Itemid=57

We'll have to see if this is any less vaporware than the Skycar
http://www.moller.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=50&Itemid=58

Where's that "flying car" huckster Moller when you want him?

http://www.moller.com/ Just send a few billion dollars to Moller. He'll either finish the damn thing (it's been a few years away from production for at least 30 years now) or just go away.

Well the flying car is already here and here. So we'll be getting cheap solar soon.

Here is one. Oh, here is another. You must not be looking very hard.

I wish I could mod you +1 funny, Daisy can put her shoes by my laptop anytime. But I was thinking something more like this, or this.

Where's my god damned flying car?!!

Here

The SkyCar Guy.

http://www.moller.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=49&Itemid=57

If you want a real flying car, try http://www.moller.com/ Sure, they aren't making them and are "four years away from FAA certification (and have been 2 years away from certification for the past 20 years or so, so it's getting worse)." But they are cool, and more like what people think of when talking about flying cars.

I am more interested in seeing this one actually fly then some hybrid airplane (which has been done before...):

http://www.moller.com/skycar.htm

Personal automated air transport should not be that tough.

All the components that are required to build a pilotless VTOL aircract are readily available. For example:

• 2 seater Bell or McDonnell Douglas helicopter with a NOTAR system.
• Multiple redundant parachutes. Both vehicular and personal
• GPS. Use it to fly the damn thing. Yes Im serious! If it loses signal, it can just go set down on the nearest flat bit of ground. I just don't see the software being really that big of a deal to write.

If the cost could be brought below 400K upfront and <20K annually to run. I'd buy one in a heartbeat.

BTW Moller is a charlatan, and convicted fraudster. I have alot of venom for conmen like this who set back social progress by displacing R&D money from real inventors. How has that jerk not been stripped of his UC-Davis associate professorship?

It's not very clear to me that we learned a lot about manned missions since 1969.

Telescopes, rovers, and orbiters have yielded good knowledge. No?

Orion *is* a big Apollo lander. I recall that it will be capable of landing 3 man on the surface (a 50% increase!). If you were looking for an alternative type of lander, maybe its possible that they got it right in the 60s. On Earth, we the vehicles that are capable of landing include have helicopters and airplanes and not much else. And these don't seen like good ideas to me. Maybe this? The big improvement, though, is Ares V which should enable us to do a big more than just flying to the Moon or Mars and back. With the materials that we'll be able to bring things will get real exciting (you just wait).

This effectively makes it nearly impossible for a newcomer to break into the field.

What if the newcomer develops a new method of transportation? Hovercraft, jetpack, skycar, Segway?

One of the benefits of the patent system is that it forces people to keep coming up with new ideas. Especially the newcomer.

Dude!
You forgot flying car(Henry Ford said it would happen!), personal pneumatic transportation, cure for baldness, miniskirt, and communication with animals.

I can remember... way back to junior high school when he was hawking these things, then every year or three they'd pop up again, "the wave of the future" blah, blah, blah...

There will not be a mass-produced flying car though. That simply requires too much energy and we have a large enough energy problem as it is. Unless you want to use a derigible there is drag induced just by the act of flying which causes an additional amount of energy to be consumed as opposed to staying on the ground.

You don't read enough. There already exists a perfectly good sky car . 20mpg on pure, clean-burning ethanol, and completely safe computerized navigation and flight control. And it's quiet. And it goes well over 200mph, and can take off and land vertically, right in your yard. I can't believe you don't know about this vehicle. It's even red!

The realm of 'wearable computing' seems particularly prone to vapourware. For example, check out this awesome device, which has been babbled about for years, and which you still can't buy in stores. And this PMP thing... well, you can't buy it in stores yet either.

Yawn. Wake me when it's available for immediate shipment, with an actual price tag.

Seriously, I'm sick and tired of Slashdot stories slashvertising gadgets that ARE NOT EVEN AVAILABLE YET and may, in fact, never be. Like this damned thing.

One down, one to go!

http://www.moller.com/

Pah! I've ordered one of these you insensitive clod!

Personally if I received an e-mail from Nigeria offering me a cheap helicopter I doubt I'd trust it.
I think I'll keep saving for my skycar

This reminds me of SkyCar http://www.moller.com/ Though these types of 'cars' look like attempts to make private planes road-legal. I was expecting something more along the lines of hovercraft this time...

Here's an article about flying cars in the CBS news: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/04/15/60minutes/main688454.shtml

Here's a link to the Moller Skycar: http://www.moller.com/skyc.htm

http://www.moller.com/skyc.htm As requested.

coming soon I imagine... http://moller.com/ ;)

Avionics engineers? Flight instructors? No way, jose...

Nothing says "scam" like the one and only job opening is for a guy who can pull off good scam videos:

From http://www.moller.com/jobs.htm:

CGI Animator
Wanted: Computer generated photo-realistic animated sequences of Moller M200-based volantors (see www.moller.com). Looking for multiple 2-to-5 minute animations of the M200 being used in recreational, agricultural and public safety applications. Ultimately these sequences will be posted on our web site and/or provided to interested parties via DVD. Demonstrated skills with 3D modeling, rendering, and animation are required. Award of contract will be given to the firm with the best fixed price bid able to demonstrate the best a high-level storyboard, sample scenes and brief sound track segment. Contact Bruce Calkins at Moller International, Inc. via bruce@moller.com.

They can't even get the insurance company to allow them to test it without the tether.

Our insurance will go up substantially when the tether is not used while flying over land

I saw that too. The video can be found here http://www.moller.com/videom200x.htm.
Using the timecode on the video image, the crane comes into view at around 1:05:50 . Keep watching and at around 1:06:12 - 1:06:13 you can see what looks like acable coming down. There are two "blobs" on it which can be seen on 1:06:12:28 .

I'm not sure about the side to side stuff as the "jet" configuration may cause that but the crane certainly looks like it is attached to the "car".

Of course it could just be a safety-wire of sorts (like those used on some climbing walls) so that if the car's engines fail the driver is not dropped to the ground at speed.

Fire up your Blender!

One 70's video of this one is on http://www.moller.com/videom200x.htm

B sure 2 have a helicopter ready to rescue the pilot after he crashes.

here is their website. in case you were interested. I guess the discovery channel even covered them a while ago.

By 2050???
I hope I'll be in a flying car powered by a perpetual motion machine (think Moller meets Stroen).

Just kidding, by 2050 I want to be teleported to wherever I want to go!

First off, science was paired against religion, not business. I supposed I should have added a single word, respectively, to that particular sentence, at least as far as that goes.

We do have flying cars, controlled nuclear fusion, and there are potential cures for cancer.

They're just no ubiquitous. Then again, Rome wasn't built in a day. Give it time, or are you upset that it took 8 years to land on the moon?