Slashdot Mirror
Fabulous Flying Machine Progress
HobbySpacer writes "A SoloTrek video shows a recent tethered hover test of the one person VTOL vehicle.The company has DARPA and NASA support and has
carried out a number of sucessful wind tunnel
and power tests.
Meanwhile, the
CarterCopter RotorWing demonstrator may
soon show for the first time that a vehicle with a rotor can safely achieve very high airspeeds (e.g.400-500 mph) where the
tip speed is actually slower than the vehicle speed. This has been a great
project to follow since they are so open and honest about the
various
problems and fixes during the development.
Just wish Moller
was as transparent about the Skycar.
At least a video
and some images
were recently posted showing the nose of the craft lifting off
under its own power."
The statement that the rotor tip is moving slower that the body is incorrect, it should be obvious that this is a physical impossibility. The assending blade is moving forward 100MPH RELATIVE TO THE VEHICLE which means 600MPH. The retreating blade is another story. The point of the article is to prevent the assending blade tip from reaching speeds past the speed of sound. So there.
If you still have your rotors attached, you can do something to save your ass:
;)
Dive. The increased speed from your dive increases your rotor speed significantly.. After the rotor speed is sufficient, you can get out of the dive.
You just have to pull back on the stick before you hit ground... This is a real one-shot deal unfortunately because once you pull back, you lose your rotor speed and start falling again. Try to be close to ground
The whole concept of a powered-list/vectored-thrust flying machine is so incredibly dangerous. Just look at the history of R&D on the Brittish Harrier jump jet and how it took so many years to get enough kinks ironed out of the engineering and technology just to get it to a state where only the very best of the best of pilots could just barely keep it under control in thrust-lift mode. Look as the abysmally poor track record of the V22 Osprey too, what a flying coffin that machine is!!!
:-)
The CarterCopter, on the other hand, relies on much more proven controllable aircraft principles, and has finally been test flown up to 139 knots airspeed and handled about the same as more conventional gyrocopters once they figured out the basic operational parameters of the hardware combination it consists of. I've personally witnessed the CarterCopter four times so far in the past two years and it's coming out of its "infancy" state of test flights, and is now well into the "toddler" phase. Pretty soon it will be in the "full child" and then "adolescent" phase where then it will be pushed to the break-the-mu-barrier tests. The CarterCopter folks are at Oshkosh right now and have announced that probably Oshkosh 2003 it will be ready to make full-blown demonstation flights of its technological prowess. That's only a paltry 24 more months away folks, that's a mere blink of the eye in aviation development timeframe (as opposed to internet/computer timeframe where 24 months is an eternity
Umm, what about all that DRAG from the rotor system? Sure, they've "solved" retreating blade stall by flying the thing on the wing at altitude, but since the rotor system is still turning, the energy to turn the rotors is pure drag
Yep, the rotor system will still be windmilling and creating some drag, but since it's completely unloaded (producing zero component of lift) and the RPM of the rotor can be precisely controlled and limited, the amount of rotor drag as well as other total aircraft drag under such conditions has been calculated to be theoretically able to be just overcome by the amount of thrust available from the unique pusher propellor and big Chevy aluminum V-8 engine. Everything in any aircraft is a system of trade-offs and balances anyway.... the Carter folks think they have just found the magic envelope of lift, drag, thrust and weight to get over the mu barrier. It won't get over it by very much, but I think it will get there and cross it by a margin large enough to just be barely measureable and confirmable. To be able to dramatically break that barrier, they'll need to use a very high thrust turbofan.
Actualy you need *MORE* thurst at lot altitudes, because the air is thicker. Why do you think airliners fly in the space between 27,000 ft and 41,000 ft (Well Flight level 270 and 410 actualy)
Erlang Developer and podcaster
The CarterCopter does not spin because it is not a helecopter, it is a gyro. The main roter is not connected to anything and is autorotating. The engine is driving a push prop.
Erlang Developer and podcaster
True but this is more than made up for by the fact that the aircraft has more drag at low altitude. Check out any turbocharged or jet aircraft performence chart.
Erlang Developer and podcaster
They are still smoking something, if you have an engine that can deliver 150 hp sustained and burn 1.5 gph I would be very suprised. The Rotax 912 engine burns about 4.2 gph and only delivers about
70 hp (80 is takeoff power but by the time you have climbed a few thousand feet you are down in the 60-70 hp range). So even if it used *HALF* of what the Rotax (Which is a 4 cylander) it would still be burning 2.1 gph/engine times 8. And I don't think you can get that kind of speed out of that kind of thurst.
--Zach Kessin
Private Pilot
Erlang Developer and podcaster
IF the engine dies you glide. Same as in an airplane. You do practice this a million times before you go solo.
Erlang Developer and podcaster
The class (Powered Lift) has been in the FAR's for a while. The Moller one will nevery fly but Bell and Boeing are working on something like a Civilian version of the V44 Osrprey that will be a powered lift craft. It will be smaller then the one that they are making for the marines. And when Bell and Boing announce they are building an aircraft unlike Moller I actualy belive them.
Erlang Developer and podcaster
This applies to the US only, other countries may vary.
First of all to fly eather of these things you will need to have a pilot's licence, which requires a fair investment in time and money to get.(At *LEAST* 40 hrs of flight pass a test etc)
They Gyrocopter can be treated as an Airplane by ATC except for takeoff and landing. In addition if it is as high powered as they are saying then your insurance company is going to make sure you meet a set of training requirments far above what the FAA will want to see.
Also they will not be as cheap as people are claiming the cleapest 4 place certified aircraft these days costs about $145,000 new. (The Cessna 172)
Erlang Developer and podcaster
No feathering is what you do to a twin when an engine fails. It takes the prop and makes sure that it does not spin and create a lot of drag. From what I know about autorotating that is more or less right for a helicopter. Note that this does not apply to a gyrocopter. One of these days I want to learn to fly a helicopter, but at $200/hr and up it won't be soon.
Erlang Developer and podcaster
The specs say it will cruse at 15mpg and 350 mph. That means that it will be burning 24 gallons per hour. But it apeears to have 4 engines, which means that it will be using 6 gph per engine. I would love to know where they plan to find a Jet Engine that uses 6gph and still can turn out the type of thurst that they will need to go 350 mph, even at 25,000 ft.
Erlang Developer and podcaster
Well sort of, they use the engine to spin up the roter, but once you are airborn the roter just spins due to the air passing threw it. Helecoptors can do this as well, its what you do if the engine dies. Gyrocoptors can be setup to take of and land with basicly no runway, but they can't hover or take of verticaly. So they need a clear space to climb over obsticals or whatever.
I would get a gyrocoptor rating if I could find flight school around here that gave them, but for now I will just stick to my little airplane.
Erlang Developer and podcaster
You are comparing an efficiency (2/3 hp/lb) that was actually measured in the real world, to one of Moller's outrageous figures pulled out his ass.
Moller is a con artist of high caliber. Every time his company is running out of money, he announces some new breakthrough, but doesn't show it to anybody. I'll believe in his flying machine when it actually flies, and not a day earlier.
Actually, I don't believe that any of these personal flying machines will achieve the goal of making flying accessible to non-pilots. There are just too many factors involved in the judgement involved in being a pilot to believe they could ever be automated. And car drivers are far more prone to "get-home-itis", but rarely die from it. In a plane, you just can't pull over until the thunderstorm passes - if you're in it, you'd better have an up to date will, because it's too late to do anything except hold on and hope you don't die.
--
The next Cmdr Taco duplicate will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
Wankels were used for early high performance Mazda automobiles.
Yeah, and they ate gas and produced smog at a prodigious rate. Moller is claiming much higher power at much lower fuel flow than any engine known in the world. Has any independant lab tested Moller's miracle engine? I don't think so.
Moller has given demonstrations to everyone.
You mean like that so-called "hover test" which actually shows the thing dangling on a wire? Looks like those "yogic flying" demos, or some of the worst of the UFO film, except Moller has less credibility than either of those two groups.
Moller's been working for over 20 years on this stuff. Show me one "aircar" that he's produced that can hover under its own power, and fly with a pilot on board. So far, all he's done is make a lot of claims, shown a couple of rigged demos, and redesigned his fuselage a few times to make it look cooler but less aerodynamic.
--
The next Cmdr Taco duplicate will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
all aircraft (including small personal craft) have a differential GPS receiver on board that computes position and velocity vectors with great precision;
said aircraft wirelessly network with all other aircraft within, say, a 20 km radius, transmitting their position and velocity vectors;
each aircraft runs an algorithm that would predict any collision or near-collision with another aircraft (or its turbulent wake) well in advance, and automatically makes minor course corrections to prevent them. (Not a big deal, because these personal aircraft won't be actively "piloted" anyway -- the "driver" will simply enter the desired destionation then sit back.)
and each aircraft has a fully redundant system (two GPS receivers, two transmitters, two CPUs) to ensure reliability
Many, many advantages to this kind of system:
no more mid-air collisions due to human error
aircraft can be much more densely packed in the sky -- current spacing regulations have an enormous factor of safety built in, because frequent human error requires it
no more spending $billions to upgrade the ATC system -- the legacy ATC system can be done away with altogether when the last aircraft is retrofitted
VTOL craft can safely land anywhere (parking lots, reinforced roofs)
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
I've seen alot of nice spoilers on slammed Honda Civics. Couldn't you put one on the Moller - wait - never mind...
Sanity.html - Error 404 not found
These things scare me. They're going to make it impossible to just get away. I try to go hiking in the mountains for a week, away from motors and noise. I succeed because there are very few vehicles that can get to the places that I can walk to. These would put an end to solitude - hike as far as you like, you're still within reach of a yuppie punk and his flying machine.
They'd better revoke "indecent exposure" laws when these things come out!
"The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
must be a quantum effect. that whole half of the spinning rotor must go to another dimension where it is going backwards. thus the rotor doesn't move.
hmmmm infinite MPG. no! it's a fuel PRODUCER!
:-)
If you're heavily into aviation, then AVWeb (http://www.avweb.com) is a good site to visit. All sorts of good stuff there.
--
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
They also need to feather the rotors at precisely the right moment, to generate lift that will keep them from smoking into the ground.
If you fail to feather soon enough, you impact the ground... very hard.
If you feather too soon, you actually gain altitude, then lose the ability to autorotate, and plummet to the ground... very hard.
If you do it just right, you generate just enough lift to achieve no velocity just at the moment the helicopter touches down. Or, more likely, almost no velocity, so that you impact the ground gently.
(I think it's "feathering." Something like that.)
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
The price is in there... taken from the FAQ page:
4.3. How much will M400 cost?
In limited production (500 units per year) the M400 Skycar will sell for a price comparable to that of a four-passenger high performance helicopter or airplane, approximately $500,000. As the volume of production increases substantially, its price can approach that of a quality automobile ($60,000-$80,000).
-----
Save Maine's economy: write stuff down. All comments are exclusively my own, not my employer.
From the SkyCar technology page:
"Moller rotary engines were developed from technology obtained from Outboard Marine Corporation (OMC) and are of the Wankel-Type. During each rotation of the rotor a four-stroke spark ignition combustion process occurs in each of the three pockets of a triangular rotor. After one full rotation of the rotor the engine has completed the four-stroke process three times. They therefore provide a high power-to-weight ratio at a reasonable cost and are very small for their power output. The 150 HP model used in the M400 can be easily carried by one person. Eight Rotapower engines are used in the production model volantor."
They're not using a jet engine, they're using rotary engines known to be incredibly efficient.
Check out this site for some good reading on the technology: http://www.freedom-motors.com/
The CarterCopter is using a turbocharged auto engine. Many people would like to see auto engine technology into aircraft, but so far this has never gotten past the experimental stage. Currently aicraft engines are remarkably crude designs (somewhat heavy, inefficient, low power), but exceedingly reliable. Engine failures are rare events; which is good since engine failures are almost always minor disasters.
There was one serious attempt by Porsche that was a dismal failure. It is doubtful that this powerplant will be viewed as reliable enough by the FAA for aviation use anytime soon.
While these machines are pretty neat, they look rather spartan. I mean, where is the cellphone, the makeup mirror, cupholders, entertainment center and web terminal? God forbid the driver should have to devote the entirety of their travel time, to just piloting the craft.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
flight patters
"I tailed up, flogged out, he dicky-birded, and the nabber tickled on the tocker-bang."
My apologies to Monty Python for that terrible, terrible paraphrase.
--
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
Don't forget the kids who can jump over one of these suckers. These flying cars will add a wonderful new set of Jackass stunts.
--
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
They promised us jetpacks! I want my jetpack! Where the hell is my jetpack?!
"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
The correct link is: here
If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
Reminds me of the Golgafrinchans, after they've started colonizing earth, when they decide to invent the wheel.
"But it won't work - it's not round!"
"Bah - that's minor - the important questions are what color should it be? How big? Boy, you really don't know anything about marketing, do you?"
yeah, but shorter runways, like a hundred feet i think. and engine failure just means you have to land NOW, rather than crash.
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
Yeah but its pretty easy to program in a few more "sky lanes" for rush hour
Trust me, it's not. Airspace noise restrictions are a major problem today: if you get hundreds of low-flying planes every day over your house you watch property values tank. People will fight any such action tooth and nail: I've seen it for small airports that want to allow a few more corporate jets/week in, much less this level of traffic.
Add to that the complication of existing routes around major cities. Anywhere you'd want to avoid traffic is probably class B, or at least class C airspace. There are control towers that move all traffic around these areas for a 30-mile radius at the minimum. It's just not going to be as easy as people seem to think.
Eric
"Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
And what I hear from people who've done it is that it is, marginally, preferable to boring a hole in the ground. Apparently the chopper spins one way and the rotors another. At the same speed. Barf-o-matic.
Best Slashdot Co
Something like this is fine if you want to have a little fun on the weekend, and you don't really have a need to be anywhere.
But if the weather turns even a little nasty, you have to stay on the ground. And I really wouldn't use one of these too far from my home airport. Defintely no cross country.
But if your budget is really low, and you must get up in the air, it's not a bad way to go. There are other types of ultralights as well, all the way from hangliders with engines, to almost-planes.
Have you ever seen a maple seed? When you throw it up in the air, it will fall gently to the ground, while generating lift from its rotating "wing".
Helicopters don't fall quite as gently when the power is cut, but it's entirely possible for the occupants of a helicopter to survive an autorotation when properly piloted.
Don't get me wrong, helicopters scare me, but losing power in a heli is not one of those things that keeps me away from those funny planes with the propeller on top.
Try this: Grab x-plane or FS2000, and start up a heli simulation. Take off. Are you still with me? Taking off is harder than it looks, isn't it? Pretend you're on a cross country flight, and you need to take your hand off the cyclic, and get your sectional chart out of your bag. Notice what the helicopter does when you take your hand off the cyclic. Can you recover?
Come back and tell me helicopters are perfectly safe.
After all, it would probably be necessary to delineate "sky lanes" for traffick, since you can't just have everybody up there drivin' around free.
Personally I subscribe to the "Big Sky" theory of air traffic control. I mean look at it - there's so much sky up there, what're the odds that two planes would be in the same place at the same time?
dosent sound so bad to me. Kill off the lazy and the stupid that way, thus insuring the success of generations to come, by reducing headcount and "chlorinating the gene pool" as it were.
Think again - this isn't some clapped-out 1978 Buick beater we're talking about here. The lazy and stupid will not be driving something that cost half a million bucks.
The centrifugal force from 55-pounds of depleted uranium in each blade tip keeps the rotor rigid and stable at the reduced rotor rpm and high forward speeds.
Uranium? That's what they use in Nookyooler reactors, and those are EVIL and will DESTROY THE WORLD! The CarterCopter must be STOPPED!
I really like the look of the Moller SKycar. It looks like the Mach 5, but with jet engines instead of wheels.
Whatever happened to Dean Kamen's mysterious Ginger project? Could that be some sort of flying machine? And why does Amazon lilst it under "Electronics"? Enquiring minds want to know.
http://www.nastran.com/website/files/skyrider/m
This inventor had the rather brilliant idea of using an electric transmission to drive the fans. It looks to me like he might actually deliver what Mosher has been promising for the last few decades.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Nah, you just do a "Bugs Bunny" and step out just before it hits. Worked every time.
Its bad enough when a bird hits a glass window but now we have some adult with a huge hunk of steel strapped to their back ramming the patio doors
The CarterCopter is being modeled and flight tested with X-Plane by Laminar Research. It is the most advanced consumer flight simulator that uses blade element analysis too calculate ALL of the real physical forces acting on the aircraft! Check out the X-Plane Front Page for pics of the CarterCoptor test pilot taking a test flight on a new Apple G4 (in the hanger with the actual plane in the background).
You are correct that jets fy at high altitudes to save fuel, however this statement make no sense:
No, no, it made perfect sense. The way I understand it, airspeed does not measure how fast the aircraft actually moves, but rather how much air moves across the wings. The measurement gets made by testing the air pressure coming across the wing and then compensating for the air pressure in still air at that altitude, which gets measured by another device that the air doesn't flow across. Therefore, an airplane moving at 350kts will have the same air pressure coming across its wing at sea level and 25,000 feet, and hence, the same amount of drag.
Wait a minute... you just told me the same thing I told you. In other words, I do understand it. =-)
Ground speed measures how fast the airplane moves across the Earth, and airspeed measures how fast air moves across the wings. In a nosedive, the ground speed drops to zero while the airspeed rises. Of course, this tells you how fast you go, but it doesn't directly measure that. It simply measures air pressure, which gets affected by (at least) two things: the speed of the aircraft and the density of the air. At a given ground speed, your airspeed drops as you go higher, so you experience less drag. Conversely, at a given airspeed, your ground speed goes higher at higher altitudes, so you experience the same amount of drag.
The bottom line: Since airspeed doesn't measure any particular speed, but rather pressure, at a given airspeed you will experience the same amount of drag at any altitude, because you have just as much air coming across the wings.
Anyway, for the most part, knowing how fast you actually move at a given times doesn't work out as important as knowing whether you have enough speed to create sufficient lift, which the airspeed indicator will tell you regardless of your altitude. Naturally, as you go higher, the lesser density of the air means you need a greater groundspeed (and therefore, more thrust) to get the same airspeed, which explains why all airplanes couldn't just keep climbing until they reach outer space.
I just noticed, however, that when you quoted me I said, "an airplane moving at 350kts", which I suppose accidentally implies ground speed, when I really meant to say "an airplane with an airspeed of 350kts", so this may have caused some confusion.
That said, assuming no wind, a plane at sea level flying at 350kia (Knots Indicated Airspeed) will have the same groundspeed as the same plane flying at 35,000ft 350kia.
s .htm
Wrong. That only works for true airspeed, which generally does not get measured except by very advanced instruments. I refer you to the following page: http://www.elmendorf.af.mil/Units/90FS/instrument
Note the description of indicated airspeed vs. true airspeed:
For example, at sea level a TAS of 440 MPH will equal an IAS of about 440. At 20,000 feet, a TAS of 440 MPH will have an IAS of about 360. Thus, for a given TAS, indicated airspeed will decrease with altitude.
As altitude increases and true airspeed, and therefore, groundspeed remains constant, indicated airspeed drops due to the lesser air pressure. The true airspeed doesn't really matter, however. Indicated airspeed becomes much more important, as lift does not get produced as a function of speed, but rather a function of pressure. You can move a million miles an hour through a vacuum, and still produce absolutely no lift. Conversely, in an extremely dense atmosphere it takes much less speed to provide the same amount of lift (assuming constant gravity).
Look at it this way: If you have a rocket , and you propel yourself at sea level, your groundspeed and airspeed (assuming no wind) will stay pretty much the same. Now, if you leave the atmosphere and go into outer space, your groundspeed remains the same, but your airspeed drops to zero, since you have no air pressure. As you fall back to Earth, maintaining a constant groundspeed, your (horizontal) airspeed increases as ambient air pressure rises.
In any event, I think I have shown that indicated airspeed simply measures pressure, and not speed at all. If you want to convert that to true airspeed, you need to do some math involving altitude and temperature, but, like you said, for most pilots this serves no purpose since this only really tells you groundspeed +- wind, and nobody cares about that.
Not all airplanes are incapable of climbing out of the atmosphere the flight ceilings of most aircraft have more to do with the engines than the abilty to make lift.
I didn't really say that... I said not all airplanes can escape the atmosphere, implying that some perhaps can (or at least, could). But as you go higher, you need greater groundspeeds to produce the same amount of lift, and most engines will just not have the ability to produce that much thrust.
Technology is outpacing the aviation industry, just as it is outpacing the intellectual property industry. The incumbent players in Aviation will have to adjust to the new realities and ditch their historical baggage, or be rendered irrelevant. What is happening to the RIAA and MPAA will soon overcome the FAA and CAP as well. Get used to it.
Edith Keeler Must Die
A SoloTrek video shows a recent tethered hover test of the one person VTOL vehicle.The company has DARPA and NASA support and has carried out a number of sucessful wind tunnel and power tests.
Um, and exactly what do you do when the engine dies? Oh, yeah, that's right, YOU die. The rotors are too small to have enough inertia for successful auto-rotation. DARPA and NASA support do not signify this will ever be available to the public, or even USED in the military. If anything, this is a "see where the technology goes" program, not something anyone envisions ever being viable. Did you LOOK at the video? That isn't a "teathered FLIGHT", that's hanging from a wire. No proof of ability to actually produce enough lift to fly under it's own power. No proof of any kind of controlability when not supported by the wire.
Meanwhile, the CarterCopter RotorWing demonstrator may soon show for the first time that a vehicle with a rotor can safely achieve very high airspeeds (e.g.400-500 mph) where the tip speed is actually slower than the vehicle speed. This has been a great project to follow since they are so open and honest about the various problems and fixes during the development.
Umm, what about all that DRAG from the rotor system? Sure, they've "solved" retreating blade stall by flying the thing on the wing at altitude, but since the rotor system is still turning, the energy to turn the rotors is pure drag. You mean Gulfstream and Bombardie and Cessna have wasted all that money making thier aircraft aerodynamic? The Gulfstream IV is only certified to 45,000. They obviously aren't going to power the "real" one with a piston engine, but even a turbine will only output a fraction of sea level power at that altitude. So far, they've achieved something like 2000 feet, and they've only crashed 3 times!
Just wish Moller was as transparent about the Skycar. At least a video and some images were recently posted showing the nose of the craft lifting off under its own power.
Moller. How long has this guy been promising "real soon now"? And the pics show the nose being lifted by "2 of the 4 front engines". How many engines are in the back? Probably at least 4 more. Where is all the fuel to run all these engines going to be stored? And oh, by the way, Avgas is about 6lb/gal. At his claimed speed of 350mph, and 15 miles/gallon, that works out to 23 gallons per hour. Total. For ALL the engines, not each engine. Wonder why most twins suck around 15-18 gal/hour/side and don't go anywhere near that fast? And, oh, by the way, looks like if you run it out of fuel, you die.
Aviation is full of this kind of crap. Even Eclipse, a relatively convential design promising a 365 knot jet for under $900k is smoking crack. They claim first flight will be July 2002 with certification by the end of 2003. Not a chance. Even presuming that thier first aircraft is fully conformed and doesn't need any tweaks requireing more than extreamly minor redesign, you can't certify a twin jet in 18 months. There's too much flying, too much testing, too much red tape to cut through.
Nothing to see here, move along.
Merde, il pleut encore!
Courtesy of Apple - I chucked the video on my idisk. It's 1.6 meg Quicktime. Kick Apple's server in the nuts and see how it holds up under the slashdotting, I've always been curious. :)
TomatoMan
-- http://frobnosticate.com
BTW ultralights probably fit into this same exact category as these machines, and again, rocket fired parachutes can save your but even from very low altitude.
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth"
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
I still can't wait for my own personal air travel. It's coming, but I will believe it when I see it, or can buy it. After all how many times has the Mosler vehicle been on a the cover of Popular Mechanics or another similliar publication?
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth"
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
There is a japanese company that has already built and flown successfully a personal helicopter. It was demonstrated at Airventure 99' in Oshkosh, WI. Their site is extremely slow, so someone please mirror: http://www.engineeringsystem.co.jp/Prd_GENH-4.html
It's exactly what the exo-death machine hopes to be, only lighter, cheaper, and certainly safer. There are four independent engines on this japanese puppy, with a balistic parachute system for catastrophies. The test pilot at Oshkosh crashed recently but dusted himself off without any injuries greater than a bruised ego... The rotors were destroyed, but the pilot's minor injuries show that this thing has been tested and has proven itself reasonably safe.
I'm still deeply skeptical of the Moller deal- both whether the thing will ever lift off, and whether it will be possible to use it in the fully automated manner that they are suggesting. Flying requires a well trained and informed pilot with a cautious attitude to make the right decisions in order to be safe. Computers can never fully replace the decision making of a competent pilot, and no company will risk the liability!
Learn to fly! www.beapilot.com
They probably make sense in a ducted-fan VTOL machine though - less weight means you need a less powerful engine to provide a controlled descent during engine-out scenarios.
There's a big NASA-funded push to get the cost of small jet engines down. Jet-powered general aviation would be a big win. Jets are more powerful, quieter, and more reliable than reciprocating engines. They just cost too much to make. This problem is just about to be cracked.
That's the big news. With cheaper jets, lots of aircraft designs marginal with reciprocating engines will make sense.
Very, very few people can do really good mechanical design. All the mechanical teletype machines were designed by Ed Klienschmidt. Williams, the designer of the EJ22, designed the jet engines for cruise missiles, and the backpack jet engine for the 1960s flying backpack. He's been responsible for most of the innovation that worked in small jet engines. He's in his 80s. Unclear if anybody can replace him.
D.F. Jones, who wrote the Daedelus column in New Scientist for years, suggested this idea years ago. He proposed one spherical wheel, but you don't really want to do it that way; driving a sphere is a pain if the sphere can get dirty. (Think of the mouse ball problem.) Nor do you want to build a self-balancing unicycle. (A friend of mine at Stanford's robotics lab did that. It works, but there's no neutral position for that geometry, and it works too hard standing still.) Two separately-driven wheels, as Kamen's wheelchair uses, are the way to go.
There's a lot of noise about a Stirling-cycle engine for Ginger, but I'll bet it turns out to be the standard powerplant for indoor operation - a 4-cycle internal combustion engine running on butane. Thousands of lift trucks work that way. Stirling-cycle engines aren't that efficient.
The reason it's supposed to be a big deal is that it's a vehicle that can cross the boundary between indoors and outdoors. This could lead to downtown areas with big parking structures nearby but no cars in the built-up area.
Of course, a skateboard has much the same advantages, except that it requires a skilled operator.
You still haven't accounted for the information that you need more than one to fully get the benefits. How would you hook up two scooters?
Cartercopter! Good Lord I never seen it! This is why keep reading slashdot. I have little resources for it, but this stuff is in my blood. Along with NASA's programs http://sats.nasa.gov , the Cirrus http://www.cirrusdesign.com and Eclipse http://www.eclipseaviation.com projects etc. It feels like a long sought renaissance in General Aviation! Potential Aviation Geeks: Know that as we speak, the great pilgimage to Mecca is happening. OSHKOSH!!!: http://www.airventure.org I wish I was there. When I lived in the midwestern US I went every year. Even if you are not into aircraft its truly a hackfest of another color that anyone here would goosepimple at. (If 50 WWII warbirds roaring overhead at once doesn't do it - Lots of workshops, commercial exhibits, NASA, tons of aircraft; homebuilts, experimentals, ultralights, rotorcraft that you can actually examine up close.) It's truly a wonderful event. And if you can't make Oshkosh, there are smaller Airshows hosted by the Experimental Aircraft Association. http://www.eaa.org/ I just went to the one up here in Arlington WA US and it was great. The EAA is a great organization. These guys are the DIY set of GA and they've kept the open source spirit of grassroots technology sharing since the ENIAC days. Oshkosh! I'm just assuming all active Flying Geeks already know about it or are there.
That seems to match up with reason. As they point out, most helicopters and cars average 5 times the cost of their engines. Given their freedom motor spinoff info, the engines are going to cost 2,000$ each initially. Multiply that times 8 engines, that's 16,000$. Multiply by 5... ;)
-= rei =-
"Well, then fire it up and show me what this..." (sigh)
They have new FAA regulations in the works. If you'll browse around on Moller's site, you'll find that the FAA has already created a new license class (powered lift) for vehicles like these.
-= Rei =-
"Well, then fire it up and show me what this..." (sigh)
Am I the only one looking at those choppers and going, "ummm..."?
:)
110 lbs of depleted uranium? incredibly delicate balance issues? not even the slightest hint of a pricing estimate on the page, or even clues that pricing was a concern at all during the design?
These are clearly not designed for mass production. They should not be classed in with "skycars", but with helicopters.
Another thing: their engine is getting less than 2/3 hp/lb. Thats a really poor ratio compared to Moller's, and given their engine setup, probably very fuel inefficient.
I won't be holding my breath waiting for one of those. I'll wait for my Skycar.
-= rei =-
"Well, then fire it up and show me what this..." (sigh)
Um, the wankels moller uses are already in use in many other places. Under a DARPA contract, they produced a honda civic designed for fuel efficiency which got 3/4 HP/LB. Their outboard engine, designed for performance, gets 2.5HP/LB. The engines have already been tested - the engine manufacturing company has already had a complete spinoff. Wankels were used for early high performance Mazda automobiles. They were discontinued because their model had weak seals and tended to leak oil, but the engines themselves performed quite well. So, first off, quit accusing people of fabricating data when you don't have any yourself.
The ones Moller is using for the M400 get over 2HP/LB in the lab (the number they used to brag about), but in the field, the number is actually about 1.5. Still far, far better performance than this chopper.
Moller has given demonstrations to everyone. Name something they have claimed to have developed but never shown. I'm waiting.
As for your last point, that may be true, it may not be. But, if you're going to make claims like your former ones, please back them up.
-= rei =-
"Well, then fire it up and show me what this..." (sigh)
"will never fly".
I'll take issue with that. Their past two models have flown out of ground effect. I see no reason to believe this one won't. The question is whether it'll make it to mass production.
-= rei =-
"Well, then fire it up and show me what this..." (sigh)
"Yeah, and they ate gas and produced smog at a prodigious rate."
These were on *race cars* in the *1970s*. The engine itself was only designed during the 1950s - its usage has been skyrocketting since then (the smallest combustion engine in the world is a microscopic wankel engine). Freedom Motors has 500,000 production orders, and they just incorporated. You might as well try and claim that the engines used in (insert some random car) don't work - this is a legitimate company with a legitimate product, that already exists in legitimate on-the-market products, has defense contracts for its use, etc. Do a quick search for 'wankel "freedom motors" engine'. This isn't "Moller's Miracle Engine". This is a Freedom Motors' mass-produced commercially-used-design engine.
"You mean like that so-called "hover test" which actually shows the thing dangling on a wire?"
There are several tests. I'm assuming you're referring to the M200, their first model to fly - there's a good video out there of it flying out of ground effect. The "dangling from a wire" is a silly concept - its obvious from the video there is no tension on the thing, its for insurance purposes so they don't get killed if something went wrong (as prototype craft often have unforseen problems).
"Moller's been working for over 20 years on this stuff"
Over 50 years. The M200 and the M150 can both hover outside of ground effect. Some of their earlier models can hover within ground effect. They already produce aerobots for defense contracts, as well.
-= rei =-
"Well, then fire it up and show me what this..." (sigh)
I just hope Solotrek's vehicle is more reliable and stable than their web server...
There are two kinds of people in the world: Those with good memory.
Given a ratio of n:1 for the likelihood of a midair collision, no matter how large n might be, its size is no comfort whatsoever if you are the "1".
--
ALL YOUR KARMA ARE BELONG TO US
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Heh, it would be nice... if you think about it, though, I think that traffic congestion would quickly become the same problem. After all, it would probably be necessary to delineate "sky lanes" for traffick, since you can't just have everybody up there drivin' around free. Thus, eventually, the sky traffic would be just as bad as the ground-based traffic.
One thing that is cool is that you would have three dimensional freedom of movement, so you could be an asshole and weave over and under people instead of just side-to-side. Also on the plus side, you could have live-action games of Descent...
-------
"To hope's end I rode and to heart's breaking: Now for wrath, now for ruin and a red nightfall!"
Sorry, but you can't autorotate in a craft with fixed pitch blades like the soltrek. The CarterCopter is an autogyro, so it should be capable of at least short autorotation. The key to autorotation is foward flight, without the translational lift and additional drag of forward flight you would be falling straight down and would not likely have enough energy in the rotors to stop a fall from any significant altitude.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
So, 350kts airspeed at sea level, and 350kts airspeed at 25,000 feet will produce the same drag.
What does ground speed vs airspeed have to do with anything? There is more drag on an aircrfat flying 350kts at 500 ft. than the same aircraft flying 350kts at 30,000 ft. the fact that the air is less dense at 30,000 ft is why. And I don't understand what you mean by "it needs to go faster through thin air to get enough to do the job" Do you mean that a wing at 35,000 feet has to be travelling faster to generate the same lift? What does that have to do with fuel consumption?
Si vis pacem, para bellum
The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
no, you don't understand it. Pilots actually want to know how fast the are going. Its pretty important actually.
The system for measuring airspeed on an aircraft consisists of three devices, a pitot tube which extends into the airstream and measures ram air pressure, and a static port which is usually in some shelterd place on the aircraft and measure ambient pressure (note: many aircraft have multiples of the above for redundancy) the third device is an airspeed indicator which really just compares the preassure from the other two devices. Regardless of altitude if the pressure is the same you are standing still and the greater the difference the faster you are going. The fact that air is less dense at altitude is precisely the reason for the static port.
Therefore, an airplane moving at 350kts will have the same air pressure coming across its wing at sea level and 25,000 feet, and hence, the same amount of drag.
No. It will have the same pressure differential between the static and ram pressure, but believe it or not it is going the same speed relative to whatever and will therefore experience less drag from the oncoming less dense air.
Induced drag which is a by product of lift will actually be the same regardless of altitude however since the aircraft *must* be generating the same amount of lift to maintain level flight.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
You really don't. Maybe this explanation is better than mine.
The point is that an airspeed indicator reports air SPEED. not amount of air, not air pressure, not lift. It actually reports the SPEED of the air moving past the aircraft.
I just noticed, however, that when you quoted me I said, "an airplane moving at 350kts", which I suppose accidentally implies ground speed, when I really meant to say "an airplane with an airspeed of 350kts", so this may have caused some confusion.
No confusion, pilots rarely talk about ground speed since it is really irrelevant to most aspects of flying (it is however important for navigation). That said, assuming no wind, a plane at sea level flying at 350kia (Knots Indicated Airspeed) will have the same groundspeed as the same plane flying at 35,000ft 350kia.
Anyway, for the most part, knowing how fast you actually move at a given times doesn't work out as important as knowing whether you have enough speed to create sufficient lift, which the airspeed indicator will tell you regardless of your altitude.
Knowing how fast you are going is probaly the single most important thing when flying. You know that you are creating sufficient lift because the plane is still flying, there is no "lift indicator" on aircraft. Again, REGARDLESS OF YOUR ALTITUDE the airspeed indicator tells you your AIRSPEED.
Naturally, as you go higher, the lesser density of the air means you need a greater groundspeed (and therefore, more thrust) to get the same airspeed, which explains why all airplanes couldn't just keep climbing until they reach outer space.
Let me reiterate, altitude has NOTHING to do with airspeed the reason for the static port is so that the airspeed indicator will "know" the ambient pressure and the indicator will compensate. In fact, your airspeed indicator will fail as you describe if your static port becomes clogged. Groundspeed = Airspeed +- Wind regardless of altitude. It takes LESS thrust to reach the same airspeed at a higher altitude because there is less drag that is why it saves fuel.
Not all airplanes are incapable of climbing out of the atmosphere the flight ceilings of most aircraft have more to do with the engines than the abilty to make lift.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
Wouldn't that really mess up your hair?
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
Yeah but its pretty easy to program in a few more "sky lanes" for rush hour when you are talking about virtually empty space versus pissing off every single city, town and hamlet along an interstate for 5 years building on a single lane.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
This sig for rent.
The technology implied in this article are not auto-gyros, but personal flying craft that can literaly 'take off from your drive way'. Now, if they can actually make these craft is another story altogether, but for the sake of the point, I was assuming they can.
The real issue at hand has to do with the way air traffic is handled. The technology implicit with this kind of craft assumes a greated degree of control that a triditional aircraft does not have. Using your figure of 160 knots for a stall speed (and you don't want run jets in a controled envrionment right at stall speed), there is very little margin for error. (Imagine if cars would blow up if they travled less then 182 miles per hour unless they performed a carefully orchistrated manuvers in special areas). Hence the need for a very advanced air traffic control system manned by experienced, trained professionals.
Now, take away the required for speed to stay aloft. Take away all the special areas to land, and suddenly you can be far more flexible with how you control things in the air.
The Internet is generally stupid
But this technology thows that out the window. If we can get a personal vehicle to cheaply take off vertically and reach high crusing speeds, most likely, we can do it with a large commerical/passenger vehicle. If a 400 passenger literal 'air bus' can land in a city block in your down town, shoot up to 30,000 feet and and then reach speeds close to our current airliners, I doubt the triditional airports (and aircraft) will see much business.
If we ever get this sort of thing to ever actually work, it's not too unreasonable that in a few years conventional air traffic control will be a thing of the past. While we may not get total automation to prevent people from running into each other, it should be pretty easy to install a GPS in these things with pre-programed 'rules' that govern the piloting style (ie, you are above a city. You can not drop below 3,000 feet unless your hortizontal speed is at zero).
Of course, just because things CAN be done this way, does'nt mean they should.
The Internet is generally stupid
Airplanes have a rigorous inspection process before each takeoff. This one-person flying machine sounds like a recipe for disaster when the least mechanical failure happens. Plus, there are no wings to save you from free fall!
You're posting a fake link, pretending to abuse sourceforge. Why?
Do you really think casual users of this kind of craft will have the skill to pull off an auto rotation maneuver?
Most aircraft that fly high do so because it saves fuel. I know that probably sounds counter-intuitive; but it's true. Aerodynamics aren't quite as straight forward as many people think.
It is true that at lower altitudes, there is more drag at say, 350kts ground speed. But the airplane doesn't fly by ground speed. It flies by airspeed. Because the wing works with air molecules, it needs to go faster through thin air to get enough to do the job.
So, 350kts airspeed at sea level, and 350kts airspeed at 25,000 feet will produce the same drag.
The neat little fuel trick is also related to air density. As we climb, the air obviously gets thinner. For a while, the engine can keep up; because it doesn't typically use all of its power at sea level anyhow. Eventually, however, it reaches a point where its performance starts to drop because it doesn't have as much air to work with. At all times you're looking for the best combustible mixture of fuel and air; so as the air decreases in density, it makes sense to decrease the amount of fuel added to it. We've all heard the saying that you can actually put a fire out with gasoline; and it's true. The same thing can happen inside your engine if you don't adjust for the thinning air. Even with the extra fuel spent to climb to a cruising altitude, it results in a substantial fuel savings to fly high.
Hot Damn! It's the Soggy Bottom Boys!
Mexico buys them up and Cocaine and Marijuana will be transported over the unmanned sections of the US Border? This thing will easily fly below radar.
- A Frog in a pond utters an azure cry. -
Why do I get visions the old
1930's move "Things to Come"
or is it a different kind of
Rocketeer? (And will it trim
the bottoms of trees.)
Tracy Johnson
Justin Thyme Productions
Tracy Johnson
Old fashioned text games hosted below:
http://empire.openmpe.com/
BT
I've seen the CarterCopter up close and personal. I live in Wichita Falls, TX only 1/2 mile down the road from their business office and have flown my own small airplane down to Olney a few times to watch them test the CarterCopter. It is very real, and yes it actually flies. It's quite an impressive piece of design work.
I have been following the progress of Carter Copters prototype tests for over 4 years. Out of all the newer type aircraft I have looked at, I believe this one has the best chance of success.
I agree. I live down the street from their business office in Wichita Falls and have flown my own plane down to Olney to watch the tests. I've seen the aircraft up close and personal and it impresses the heck out of me.
Some of the specs on this aircraft are amazing! You can take 5 passengers coast to coast on 120 gallons of fuel at over 400mph at 50,000 feet and take off and land from your back yard. Easy maintenance and low cost of manufacture are very attractive to me.
Bear in mind that the prototype (and there's only one at this time) is just a two-seater and will probably only do a little over 160mph, and they say they don't intend to build any production aircraft. By the time they get the tech details ironed out and license the technology to some big aircraft manufacturer who will then build a big, jet powered version, that the purchase price will undoubtedly still be in the several hundred thousand to millions of dollars price range. It ain't gonna be a hobbiest's aircraft... by the time it reaches actual production it will be a corporate or military aircraft.
Far out, somebody else in town reads /. !
I rememeber something about a personal, portable device that was supposed to revolutionize urban life, city travel and all that jazz. I can't for the life of me remember what IT was it but IT was referred to as IT (I think) and had some interest from Steve Jobs and others in investing. IT was supposed to come out early next year. Could this be what they were talking about? Doesn't anyone remember what I'm talking about??
Uh, don't forget the possibility of retreating blade stall, where the effective airspeed of the retreating blade (the blade going 'backwards' relative to the flight path), due to rotor rotation and relative wind, is low enough to cause it to stall. The rotor disc then tends to roll off in that direction (quite nastily).
see here
If you can handle limitations in speed and greater space requirements for landing and take-off, then you can have your own personal motored aircraft for less than 10,000 dollars.
A paramotor! Yeps, it's a pretty simple concept - a paraglider (= a steerable parachute) with an engine on your back. Check out pictures and real video1 and 2.
It sounds experimental, but this is old stuff - pilots have covered 100s of kilometers in this way. There are restrictions on flight over inhabited areas (at least in most of Europe), and you are not able to go much faster than 40 km/h.
I bought a 2nd hand wing + harness for less than 1,500 dollars, and you can get a good engine for around 5000 dollars. Depending on what wing you get, you can have up to 350 kg. of luggage with you! With the right harness and certificate (or just a liberal country) you can even bring a friend as co-pilot.
I'm doing my paragliding certificate in Denmark at the moment, and even though I really want a paramotor, cliff soaring still rules.... several hours of natural wind borne flight along the coast of Denmark just beats anything....
-Kraft
-Kraft
Live and let live
Just remember what my 17 year-old neighbor with the riced-out Integra told me: Yellow == Performance.
You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door.
This space for rent.
Ummm. I am astonished.
Autogyros are not new, they were invented in the 1920's. They haven't, and will not, change the way things are done. New technology will improve them and make them somewhat more useful, or should I say less useless.
Runway slots are the limiting factor at airports, the time it takes to roll down the runway with the brakes on, then turn off, and still have a safe distance from the aircraft in front of, and behind you. Airspeed does not play much of a role in this, A modern jet has a stall speed of about 160kts, they can even be landed in about 1000ft (with passengers smeared on the forward bulkhead).
Autogyros are not magic carpets, they cannot arbitrarily stop. They hover, by the grace of God, and loose huge amounts of energy doing it. Nor are Autogyros VTOL, they just have short take off runs and short landing runs.
Remove the pilot from the loop and every possible failure mode you can think of, and the 1,000,000 others you haven't a clue about, all have to be programmed into the computer. Now let's see... A pilot takes 5 years and $1million to train... a room full of programmers, living on nothing but Jolt and Twinkies for 20 years, would cost... humm Big Number! The airforce tried this one, keeps trying it, and doesn't actually have to worry about the plane returning to the ground... gravity will assist if the computer goes AWOL. I think your 400 passengers might be a bit litigious if they found gravity was in total control of the landing criteria.
The rotor tip speed of the retreating blade is always slower than the vehicle speed. The tip speed of the advancing blade is always greater than the vehicle speed. I doubt that their technology will change this, (to get the difference to zero you must stop the rotor). They do have a apparently sound way of slowing the rotors at high, (vehicle), airspeed. Things get very ugly indeed when the tip speed of the advancing blade approaches the speed of sound. This is a major limiting factor on forward speed of conventional helicopters. Some military helicopters use stubby wings to remove some load from the rotors. Haven't heard of any that actualy slow the rotor down.
Ever heard an unmuffled RX7? Likely one of the most annoying and nerve grating sounds you will ever experience. You won't be needing noisemakers with the cacaphony of 4 to 8 rotaries plus fan noise. Myth has it that Mazda's RX3 was the main reason SCCA started requiring mufflers on race cars.
Well, I really don't understand all this fuz about it.
First, this is not practical the way it is. Sure, this is a good research step, that _might_ lead to something useful for us all in the future. But this kind of transport is simply not viable for large scale marketing. Imagine the amount of air being moved around by 10 or so of these things. Not to mention the way the air moved by one of these monsters can influence another one near the first.
Hell, if I want a way to fly, I can just grab a paramotor (or whatever it's called in USA. It's a Paraglider with an helix attached to your back) and just fly around, with much less trouble, and running with much less gas.
---
morcego
I don't know about SoloTrek, but the cars Moller is working on look so very cool I can't wait. I'm very curious as to what Moller's vehicle will cost; I couldn't find mention of price on the website. I think maybe its "if you have to ask you dont want to know".
___
___
The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason. --Ben Franklin
I have been following the progress of Carter Copters prototype tests for over 4 years.
Out of all the newer type aircraft I have looked at, I believe this one has the best chance of success.
They?re many safety features inherent in gyro craft that can?t compete with conventional prop or rotor aircraft.
1. A Gyro craft?s rotor blades are never loaded. The blades are in a state of constant autorotation . Carter Copter's blades are only loaded on take off, which means that if there were a complete engine failure the aircraft can safley land from an any speed or altitude. Helicopter blades have to be unloaded in order to auto rotate. If they are at higher altitude they have a better chance of survival. Most helicopter accidents occur at low speeds low altitudes. The Pilot does not have enough time to unload the blades in the event of an emergency..
2. If the rotor blades fail, the craft can still glide and fly like a conventional aircraft to make a proper airfield landing.
3. If the rotors and wings fail then there is a ballistic parachute to save the cabin.
Gyros have been around for many years. Craft are inherently stable flyers. The reason they where never developed and interest was lost was due to the fact that you can?t get them to fly very fast. That was until this aircraft design came about.
Some of the specs on this aircraft are amazing!
You can take 5 passengers coast to coast on 120 gallons of fuel at over 400mph at 50,000 feet and take off and land from your back yard. Easy maintenance and low cost of manufacture are very attractive to me.
There are videos of this plane in action so it's not vaporware. One thing I also like is how honest they are on all the accidents they have.
I'm going to Disney from my own backyard thank you.
Two Towers-Two Worlds.One seeks triumphs and freedom for man.The other deems man unworthy and wrecks them.
Paraphrasing: "Cruise at 350 mph from point A to point B" "No speed limits" "No tickets". Totally incorrect.
The speed limit under 10,000 feet is 250 kias (knots indicated airspeed). So there IS a speed limit. Near any major airport, the speed limit is 200 kias. If the FAA catches you breaking any FARs (aviation rules) you WILL get fined, and you CAN lose your (pilots) license.
To drive these under present law, you'll need a private pilot certificate. That'll take quite some time, energy, and money; but thank god it will get rid of most of the people who think this is a good idea.
These vehicles won't help you get to your job in the city, as most cities are under "Class B" airspace (that is, you need clearance to enter), and if the controllers get too busy they won't let all of these new-age commuter pilots in.
Oh, and weather: Don't expect to drive these things in the rain, clouds, fog, snow storm, etc. You'll need a LOT more training for an instrument rating on your pilot's certificate, and then you'll need clearances to take off and go to your destination. Have you ever sat in a 757 at the gate when the the captian says he's waiting for the takeoff clearance? If these things ever became popular, you'd be sitting in your driveway for hours waiting for your clearance in IMC (bad weather).
I'll stop ranting now.
Everyone seems to be drooling that thisll some day be theirs, but the fact is that if its ever used in our lifetime, itll probably be for police cars ("Pull Over!", coming from above), and ambulances (no high-speed weaving through traffic), and such.
I couldn't fail to disagree with you less.
It's in that fermenting hype stage. People are wondering what the fsck it is. Kamen's saying that it's going to be released next year.
Probably not. Kamen filed a patent application not to long back which described a self-righting scooter powered by a Sterling Engine. My opinion is that this is what it is, and that the engine is the revolutionary part - it is incredibly efficient, and runs on damn near anything.
Probably for their own purposes. Most of the people interested in perhaps one of the greatest hype jobs of all time are more tech-oriented, so that seemed like the "natrual" place to put it.
D - M - C - A
If god had intended you to be naked, you would have been born that way.
I wonder if those vehicles would have to conform to the existing air traffic regulations as far as ID, communication, flight patters, or if new ones would be created. Would there be police patrols on the same vehicles to enforce them?
Beside the obvious concerns regarding to safety of the commute, I wonder how you could make it cooler. Can't seem to lower it or add alloy wheels to it. I guess you could make the flight stick smaller and put some UV light underneath it, but it's still not the same thing now is it...
Finally I'll be able to drive home on that damn gravel without having to wash the car every time it rains! Just fly over it!
.is that a good thing? I mean, sometimes people can survive a head-on collision at 100km/h. If they can do that, it should be a cakewalk to survive a 200km/h collision and then a 100m fall.
But seriously, you put your average AC "Phl4m3-m4St3R" in one of these and just wait until the deathtoll racks up.
Or wait. . .
This could officially be Darwin in action.
- Relativistic? That's barely Newtonian!
We have people running over 16 pedestrians while trying to pull out of a parking space. We have teens smashing up 6 cars and one pedestrian while trying to park during a driving test. I can't wait for the RealTV footage when everyone is zooming around at 400 MPH!
Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!
What about this guy who has built a gokart with a massive pulsejet attached and plans to build a jet-powered flying platform.
A new candidate for the Dawin Award perhaps?
That's a point :)
Humans *are* part of nature, at least 15m years ago we were.. but now, with flying cars 'n' stuff, the birds up there will begin to wonder. Maybe. ;)
--
You were expecting a sig?
Better enjoy the last years of relatively clear skies, where nature is free to take its course, planes can fly easily, etc etc :)
I predict a boom in roof repairs when this technology is introduced ..
--
You were expecting a sig?
Now crossing the street, we'll have to remember to look all three ways twice.
In theory gyrocopters are safer. However, go get out the statistics (ntsb) and you'll find that it just ain't so in point of fact. One of the main thing I think that slants the numbers is that most gyros are home-built and flown by amateurs. However, it would not be prudent to assume that gyrocopters are *really* safer if only they were quality built and flown. No stats show that.
I might be able to get to the Mall in 10 minutes instead of 50. Big improvement. Now if I could only put two giant lasers on the front of my car and when the pr*ck in front of me is going 350 when the speed limit is 400, I could ...
----
Just because a bunch of people believe or do something stupid, doesn't make it any less stupid.
One of Carter's previous efforts was Carter Wind Systems, whose noisy creations were not well thought of in the industry. There were legal problems.
Will my SkyCar turn into a suitcase?
90mph in a car just wasn't fast enough for me. :) Seriously, this should be able to help alleviate the traffic problems somewhat for those with long commutes like me. Of course I'll probably be dead before it's legal to be used... *sigh*
--
One problem of designating "sky lanes" comes from fluid dynamics. When one of these aircraft flies through a portion of air in a "sky lane", it creates vortices that take time to dissipate. Airports are limited to how quickly they can line up planes for takeoff and landing because of this problem. So these suggested "sky lanes" would not be nearly as crowded as car traffic lanes can get.
... I hope they would require the current process of training at the very minimum. Considering how many people tailgate with cars, I can't imagine what would happen if some jackass tailgated mid-air and lost lift due to turbulence from the guy he's so madly tailgating. The jackass would then drop from his designated altitude and threaten the lane below him.
I wonder how they would regulate the pilot licensing for these things
To put things back in perspective, sky lanes will not be implemented until both the technology is developed far enough to provide safe mass air travel for general pilots and well-defined laws/regulations are formed to keep flying commuters from chaotic wrecks.
That's Mr. Eradicator to you.
That's Mr. Eradicator to you.
trance-port