Slashdot Mirror

Moller International has been working on personal 'skycars' for a long time. Some of their earlier models resemble flying saucers, strangely enough.

I can't wait to own one of these, though.

Moller International has been working on personal 'skycars' for a long time. Some of their earlier models resemble flying saucers, strangely enough.

I can't wait to own one of these, though.

Moller International has been working on personal 'skycars' for a long time. Some of their earlier models resemble flying saucers, strangely enough.

I can't wait to own one of these, though.

Moller's had it's aerobot out for some time now.

Looks to me like ducted fans are the way to go. More efficient, totally enclosed. In fact, I'm planning on prototyping a small df rc aircraft next year.

What about my flying car?

If you don't have one yet, it's your own fault.

here is your flying car.

The referenced link is for TEST TRAINS that do not carry regular passengers. Where is there a MagLev anywhere in the world providing passenger service? This is exactly why I compared it with the personal flying car. We've all seen the Moller SkyCar. It can be done in small experimental scales, but is it too impractical/expensive/dangerous for regular service? On the economic viability especially, what added VALUE does a MagLev have over a wheeled train that makes it worth the high cost?

Nyeah, here, of course!

The Moller Skycar, coming soon for over 30 years!

Nyeah, here, of course!

The BBC story saying he has no 'contingeny plan' and not cared about 'Search & Rescue'. If the pilot doesn't care about S&R in remote areas, he has done poor planning. Considering any emergeny which forces him to land away from any base as unlikely is just dump. I've read Impact Erebus by Gordon Vette which is about the story of the Air New Zealand DC-10 which near McMurdo in 1978. Even a Search & Rescue operation close to McMurdo was incredibly complicated and no one wants to search a crashed pilot when it's even unlikely to find him (he hasn't told anyone) and it's unlikely for him to survive. I'm not surprised that people don't encourage him to continue. Besides ... he has probably landed his airplane at cMurdo Williams Field. There is no such thing as a runway at the New Zealand base, the only other runways down there are the Pegasus Field and the Ice Runway both located a few miles away on the shelf ice. fm

This new guy is worse.

The numbers on this thing are amusing. It's way overpowered. Unlike Moller, this thing uses a jet engine. Hanging a CJ610, with about 3000 pounds of thrust, on a 4000 pound aircraft is overkill. Two of those engines power a 20,000 pound Learjet. CJ610 engines cost about $250,000 used and overhauled.

It's unclear why the takeoff distance is so long.

The only one that's gotten "off the ground" is the Moller SkyCar and he has done most of the funding himself.

And here's the link to the Moller Skycar... :)

In fact I also immediately thought of this one, as a local electronics-dude here in Norway has sold this concept for many many years...

What about the Skycar.
4 passengers, 380 mph and 28 mpg.
Only costs a Million Bucks.

Maglev trains and Flying Cars.

Ok the Moller thing is a stretch, but 500+ kph trains are a reality.

If you think that modern cars get bad milage, just imagine the fuel bill for one that takes off vertically. Likewise for the personal jetpack and for supersonic flight. Fuel cost is also a big problem in space exploration.

Once they've actually taken off, the MPG for flying cars isn't actually that bad. Indeed compared to some gas guzzling luxury sedans they're cheaper per mile in fuel costs.

The Skycar uses an engine that can burn almost any fuel from diesel to natural gas so that worldwide refueling can be accommodated by what is locally available. Using gasoline, the M400 can be expected to get over 25 mpg. With a range of 900 miles, the logistics associated with refueling the shorter-range helicopter can be eliminated.

From: Skycar website. My emphasis.

I don't think your point about broadband teleconferencing is relevant to the first argument, so I won't comment on that. It's like a hanging aside that really needs to be focused on in a separate way, based on human relationships in physical and "virtual" space.

Well well well, it seems Mr. Moller just trashed the flying car barrier .

Here ya go, SlashDot. Rip it apart:

SkyCar

Yeah, well... my monkey-powered flying car is better than your mercedes-benz.
YOU'LL SEE, once I get around to releasing it to the public.

Moller Sky-Car"

Yes, prototypes like the Moller Skycar. I heard the MSRP was going to be about a million dollars, when the FAA certifies it for sale.

Moller International have been doing some serious test flights of their M400 skycar since early this year.

The thing can hover untethered now, although they still require a tether for insurance. you can read here about how their reworking some of the design concepts while they wait for new engines to be built, and see some hover test pictures here

Moller International have been doing some serious test flights of their M400 skycar since early this year.

The thing can hover untethered now, although they still require a tether for insurance. you can read here about how their reworking some of the design concepts while they wait for new engines to be built, and see some hover test pictures here

Moller International have been doing some serious test flights of their M400 skycar since early this year.

The thing can hover untethered now, although they still require a tether for insurance. you can read here about how their reworking some of the design concepts while they wait for new engines to be built, and see some hover test pictures here

sounds like what you need is a the 'cron'ed' use of 'apt-get' at about 2:00 am in the morning; updates for us linux users can be boring sometimes. of course i have the system clock updated then to...

or, if your boss 'enjoys' microsoft; then maybe the ones who want microsoft should live with their descions.

or, you might consider investing in moller's sky car, you might as well lay back and enjoy the ride from patch site to patch site to patch site to patch site to patch site to patch site to patch site to patch site to patch site to patch site....

It is 2003. Why don't we have affordable solar power for home use?

And where the hell are the flying cars?

Maybe, it's time for an alternative?

= 9J =

Will my flying car come with computers based on MRAM?

A Wankel engine of course!

http://www.moller.com/

The company responsible, Aquada, suggest it's a good way to avoid congestion.

Relief from congestion -- that's how many alternative-transport companies have tried to get their first customers over the years. The personal helicopter dreamers have the same pitch. And every alternative transportation device turns out to need lots of room to maneuver, so that if they actually succeeded there would be unbelievable congestion in whatever medium they fly/float/submerge in. And they usually are prohibitively complex and fuel-thirsty. Check out this pig.

And we know why it isn't here.

"Your average person can just barely sort out drivers ed. Just imagine your crazy cubemate behind the stick of a flying car. Yeah, that would be frightening."

Just need stronger roofs. Buildings have all sorts of defenses against errant cars. Look at government buildings with their setbacks and concrete barriers. Even civilian buildings have some barriers to prevent accidents. If larger numbers of people had flying machines, then we would just see the equivalent vertical barriers being put into place to protect property on the ground.

I've not seen a good comparison between flying safety and car safety made, but tens of thousands of people die in car crashes each year, while well under a thousand people die in light aircraft per year. So, the question really becomes one of risk and perception. It is clear that no major relaxation of flying rules will be allowed as long as people view aircraft as terrorist weapons or just an object of the liesure class. But light aircraft are far less dangerous as a weapon than a car, since they can't carry very much weight. And light aircraft are reserved to the liesure classes primarily because the required training is very expensive. That the actual aircraft is expensive is only because of the low volume and the certification requirements. A car by comparison would be much more expensive than an aircraft if it needed to go through the same legal process and was produced in as low a volume.

All that said aircraft won't be practical as "flying cars" until they are made to be end-to-end forms of transportation, but here also new regulations would be required to allow machines like the "Skycar" to land in residential and business areas legally. But the discussion has been so corrupted by irrational fear rather than practical concerns, that no one will be allowed to do much more than jump off the ground without fifty years of development and hundreds of billions of dollars spent on systems of control to make us perfectly "safe" even when it should be clear to any thinking person that to accept the risk and allow flying "cars" to take off without such onerous and impractical rules as are now proposed would be another economic revolution akin to the development of the Model T.

Here I don't think the effects of practical personal end-to-end air transportation could be exagerated. Openning up vaste areas of land to economic development. Substantially reducing resources spent on transportation infrastructure. Indeed, space is more than just an abstract contruct, we need it to prosper, and as we reach certain density as population grows it is hard to imagine greater economic growth without openning up the skies to transportation and commerce. Free skies mean prosperity.

...It just isn't evenly distributed yet" - William Gibson.

It's true.
we have flying cars. forget the moller skycar, the future is the xantus powered lift aircraft.

we have jet packs, but now affordable backpack aircraft only nearly nobody wants to build them.

I think some people can't handle the future. they're too afraid of getting smushed up by it.

I think the V-22 has had problems just because it is too complex.

You've got two jet-turbines, which can each power both rotors. So you've got a very complex power distribution system. Lots of stuff in those pods which rotate, so lots of flexible connections which can break.

I would have preferred to see a design with six or so smaller ducted fans. So even if you lose one on each side (due to small arms fire, for example) you still have enough power to maneuver and land safely. Two or three lost on one side would need ballistically deployed parachutes to land.

Hmph. I've just described a Moller skycar. The production version hasn't flown yet. But with relatively modest funding, I bet it could. Still got a complex computer control system, so who knows what bugs might lurk there.

Your flying cars are right here, so cool out.

Skycar

www.moller.com/skycar/

You can buy a 100Kg ultralight helicopter. That's real.

Another thing that should be working by now, and isn't, is turbines for small aircraft. Light aircraft are still putt-putting around on reciprocating engines, decades after the big iron switched over.

Where's the flying cars? I want my flying car!

Well, the flying car may not be as far off as you think.

Of course, I'll believe it when I see it.

Flying cars are already here.

I was promised a flying car! Will nanotubes deliver?

Maybe they could be used to improve the Moller Skycar in some way.

I was promised flying cars, why aren't they working on the flying cars?

...Look no further... ScottKin

I think the problem with these kinds of predictions (and hey, anyway, it's a lot of fun) is that while people are fairly good at predicting the advance of human knowledge, they are very poor at anticipating the economic ramifications.

There's a great commercial with Captain Sisko where he says "This is the year 2000; where are the promised flying cars?" He then goes on to correctly point out that the advance of telecommunications has substantially decreased the demand for real world transportation.

Could we have flying cars today? Absolutely. I have a model of one on my desk. It's just that there's no great push for one. Sure I'd like one, but it doesn't solve any great problem in anyone's life, at least not without creating ten more.

Technology is often the least important factor in the success of a new invention.

I think the problem with these kinds of predictions (and hey, anyway, it's a lot of fun) is that while people are fairly good at predicting the advance of human knowledge, they are very poor at anticipating the economic ramifications.

There's a great commercial with Captain Sisko where he says "This is the year 2000; where are the promised flying cars?" He then goes on to correctly point out that the advance of telecommunications has substantially decreased the demand for real world transportation.

Could we have flying cars today? Absolutely. I have a model of one on my desk. It's just that there's no great push for one. Sure I'd like one, but it doesn't solve any great problem in anyone's life, at least not without creating ten more.

Technology is often the least important factor in the success of a new invention.

So when is the mighty industrial combine that is stavatti going to have time to finish working the bugs out of this gun? After they complete their first sale of their F-16 replacement? Or maybe when their supersonic stealth bomber, is in "advanced development"? Or how about when the prototype supersonic sea plane/executive bizjet flies? My money is on just after the sale of the 100,000th Moller flying car hits the skies. But that's not bad for a defense contractor based at a Minnesotta general aviation airport founded during the sophomore year of a kid with a bachelor's degree

No fooling. I want it. I need it. Moller needs to get busy and finish it already. I'll pay cash.

http://www.moller.com/skycar

Flying cars huh? Wonder if they could put a digester on that thing :)

just to be clear, a flying car is really just an informal term for a small private VTOL(vertical take-off and landing) aircraft that can carry you directly from start to end point. The landing requirements are that of a helicopter without the worry of a rotor taking someone's head off since the propulsion system should be enclosed. Also, there might be some ability to drive the vehicle some distance, at least far enough that a person might be able to use it as their only vehicle. Something like the Moller Skycar

On the restrictions after 9-11... The airspace restrictions on small planes are exceedingly dumb. Clearly the big commercial planes are the threat, but small private planes still face the greatest restrictions.

I wish people would remember back to 1994 when Clinton was in office... I couldn't find any pictures and they said it landed short of the whitehouse, but I remember it looked as if a small plane bounced off the outside of the whitehouse. Here is a reference to the event.

A small private plane cannot be used alone to cause significant damage. Clearly anything can be used as a weapon, but a small flying vehicle even in the hands of ill intended people can not cause more harm than other readily available common means.

The costs to not moving forward quickly to expand and allow private aviation are inumerable.