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 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
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/
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.
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.
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
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!
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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...
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!
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?