Slashdot Mirror


Buy a Moller SkyCar Prototype on eBay

HobbySpacer writes "Moller International has announced that it will offer its first working Skycar for sale on eBay starting January 31st - Press Release. The M400P prototype has repeatedly flown short hovering flights on tethers in tests since 2001 (see videos). The company warns that although '[a]ll systems are operational. Potential buyers are cautioned that this is a prototype model and considered an experimental aircraft.' Also, 'the Skycar has not yet been approved as a road vehicle.' A more powerful 2nd gen production version is currently under construction for longer untethered test flights this year."

168 comments

  1. So, u can buy a jestson's car now? by Pionar · · Score: 2, Funny

    How very Hanna-Barberaish.

    1. Re:So, u can buy a jestson's car now? by TalonKarrde989 · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Interesting. I want one =)

    2. Re:So, u can buy a jestson's car now? by droopus · · Score: 3, Informative

      Uh huh. What I don't get is once it collapses into a briefcase, how did Moller reduce the mass so you can actually lift the briefcase?

      In case the sarcasm tag wasn't on, I no more believe that Moller can actually make a reliable flying car that gets 28mpg (running on good old Texaco Regular of course) @ 350mph @ 20k feet @ 65dba than they could accomplish the aforementioned mass-reduction-briefcase trick.

      What they will offer is a hunk of red, expensive vaporware that sits in your garage like the Russian shuttle they tried to sell on ebay a year or so ago.

      Maybe ebay should have a "got too much money sitting around?" section....

      --
      "The pie shall be cut in half and each man shall receive.....death. I'll eat the pie."
    3. Re:So, u can buy a jestson's car now? by JohnFluxx · · Score: 1

      I haven't seen the said cartoon car, but who says it has to be heavy in the first place?
      It could just be light and really strong.

    4. Re:So, u can buy a jestson's car now? by ScottKin · · Score: 1

      I've been watching Moller's work for a few years now. If you're skeptical about it, then try visiting the site, read the news & reviews and see actual video of test flights.

      http://www.moller.com

      I bet you would have been with the nay-sayers when Wilbur & Orville Wright first few at Kitty Hawk.

      ScottKin

      --
      I don't give a rat's behind about "karma" here or anywhere else. Don't like what I have to say here? Deal with it!
    5. Re:So, u can buy a jestson's car now? by juhaz · · Score: 1

      He didn't deny that it FLIES, but was skeptical about the other promised things.

      Short, tethered test flights on very low altitude tell nothing about either of those. It may, or it may not, but there's nothing wrong in waiting to actually see it happen - assuming Moller manages to fly the next model long, fast and high enough to tell something about the fuel consumption and speed, or that the hypothetical buyer of this prototype does it on his/her own.

  2. FP by Fake+Pie · · Score: 0, Funny

    Think 5 bucks will win the auction?

  3. I hear the next version... by Mr.+Smoove · · Score: 1

    ...is based on the DeLorean!

    --
    Mr. Smoove
    1. Re:I hear the next version... by rusty0101 · · Score: 2, Funny

      With or without the Flux capacitor, or the underseat accessory packages?

      --
      You never know...
    2. Re:I hear the next version... by EricV314a · · Score: 2, Funny

      Do you mean it will be funded by cocaine trafficking?

  4. cool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd like to have one, but what's the point if its illegal to taker 'er out for a spin?

    1. Re:cool! by RPI+Geek · · Score: 1

      I'd like to have one, but what's the point if its illegal to taker 'er out for a spin?

      Being classified as an experimental aircraft, it'd be legal to take out for a flight, but you would have to have the appropriate pilot's certificate (My guess, as I'm still waiting for the pictures of the thing to download is a 'rotorcraft' endorsement).

      --

      - "Nobody came out that night, not one was ever seen. But Old Man Stauf is waiting there, crazy sick and mean!"
  5. Question by jdkincad · · Score: 5, Funny

    Why would a flying car need to be approved as a road vehicle?

    --
    The great advantage of having a reputation for being stupid: People are less suspicious of you.
    1. Re:Question by lexarius · · Score: 2, Funny
      You probably get better mileage if you don't have to expend lots of fuel keeping the thing up.

      Two lane highway. Two trucks taking them up. Can't pass horizontally - pass vertically!

    2. Re:Question by Camulus · · Score: 1

      Well if it works out they way they want it to (ex. car of the future), the first prototype could be a pretty valuable commodity for collectors or museums. Besides, maybe some one just wants to give the company so capital and get something in return. Have you ever seen what some people buy at a charity auction?

    3. Re:Question by r00zky · · Score: 1

      >Two lane highway. Two trucks taking them up. Can't pass horizontally - pass vertically!

      get in the way of some high voltage cables, and then crash into a bridge over the highway. 25 deaths and 20.000 persons without electricity for 2 days

      Better not have to pay an assurance for a vehicle like that...

      --
      I'm a chainsmokin' alcoholic sociopath, so-ci-o-path
    4. Re:Question by denisdekat · · Score: 1

      I know him (Paul Moller) believe it or not. It is so you can park it in your drive way and garage. Idea is you land it and drive it in.

    5. Re:Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because you can't take a spin around the block in a Cesna either.

    6. Re:Question by psych031337 · · Score: 1

      Great... now some idiots with too much money can cut you off from the left and the right side of the road and from above.

      The future sure looks bright.

      --
      +++ath0
    7. Re:Question by AyeRoxor! · · Score: 1

      ">Two lane highway. Two trucks taking them up. Can't pass horizontally - pass vertically!

      get in the way of some high voltage cables, and then crash into a bridge over the highway. 25 deaths and 20.000 persons without electricity for 2 days"

      3 significant figures on a death count of 20? What are you, some fricking physicist? Sheesh...

  6. Ebay link? by TenderMuffin · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Anyone have the link to the car on ebay?

    1. Re:Ebay link? by Remik · · Score: 1

      Read the post, it says it won't be up on e-bay until next week.

      -R

    2. Re:Ebay link? by martingunnarsson · · Score: 1

      Usually people complains about people posting before reading the article, now people post without reading the...post. RTFP?

      --
      Martin
  7. OK.... by KimiDalamori · · Score: 3, Funny

    So, basically I can buy a car that is perfectly legal to leave in my garage and never take out. Wicked, I can see it now: "Dad, can I have the keys to the skycar?" "No, son, we're not sure yet whether or not it will blow up." ... I say if someone has the extra money to buy this thing, he can give it to me instead, I'll put it to better use.

    --
    Lagito ergo expectabo
    1. Re:OK.... by Maniakes · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So, basically I can buy a car that is perfectly legal to leave in my garage and never take out.

      You can drive it on your own property (or any private property w/approval of the owner), and you can fly it over international waters . I would think that you could fly it below a certain altitude over your own property, but I can't find a link.

      So yes, completely useless for transport (unless you're Ted Turner and own millions of acres of land), this isn't much use as transport. But there's always the "Cool! I have a flying car!" factor, plus if Moller actually attains commercial success their prototype will have huge collector's value.

      --
      A legparnasom tele van angolnaval.
    2. Re:OK.... by PurpleFloyd · · Score: 2, Informative
      Experimental private aircraft are perfectly legal to fly (at least in the US); they just don't go through all the really heavy test-to-destruction stuff that the FAA requires for some components. Of course, they still need to be approved as airworthy, follow maintinance schedules, and have a big "EXPERIMENTAL" sticker posted on the side, but if you could prove it's airworthy, you could fly it to your heart's content.

      <DISCLAIMER TYPE="LONGWINDED,DUMB">
      Note that I am not an FAA representative; if you want to license your airplane, talk to someone who is. I take no responsibility for anyone trying to replicate the Spruce Goose in their spare time, then flying it, crashing, and saying "It's OK, I read it on Slashdot"! Don't be a moron. Please.
      </DISCLAIMER>

      --

      That's it. I'm no longer part of Team Sanity.
    3. Re:OK.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not clear to me how crack is a better use than a sky car.

    4. Re:OK.... by MoFoYa · · Score: 0

      Would you really want to use it anyway?- i mean the creators of this thing won't get in it to fly it. Why do you suppose that is?

      not to mention the assured high dollar auction.

      it's just a novelty for some rich guy's already extensive collection of vintage and rare and never driven cars.

    5. Re:OK.... by Sacarino · · Score: 2, Informative

      Finally a /. topic I have some decent knowledge about.

      A homebuilt/amateur-built aircraft - otherwise known as experimental - is one that the builder builds 51% of the aircraft.

      They must be inspected by an FAA Inspector or a Designated Inspector (essentially the same, similar to a contract position) in order to get an airworthiness certificate. You cannot expect to get away with slapping a gyrocopter blade on your lawnmower and flying around Podunk, Iowa (Not legally, anyways).

      Per the Experimental Aircraft Association
      The builder(s) must provide logs of when, where and how construction took place, along with supporting documents and photographs. If the aircraft passes this inspection, a pilot must fly between 25-40 hours of test flights in specific non-populated areas to make sure all components are operating properly. Only after that test time is flown may passengers be flown in the aircraft.

      Anyway, in reference to the question about where you could operate this contraption at.... In accordance with federal aviation reg (FAR) 91.319, you and your skycar would be limited to joyrides (no charging!) over non-dense population areas (no flying through downtown Manhattan) operations in visual conditions during the day only.

      Densely populated areas are shown on aviation sectional charts as yellow (that's the shape the lights of the city look like at night from altitude) so as long as you avoid those you should be ok. You might want to check with your local FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO - pronounced "Fizz-do") to get the information straight from the horse's mouth, legal-wise.
      As far as the regs go, FAR91.119 states
      Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

      (a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
      (b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.
      (c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
      (d) Helicopters. Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface. In addition, each person operating a helicopter shall comply with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the Administrator.

      --
      -- El Sacarino tiene gusto de la chocha
  8. Right after MOO3... by TrixX · · Score: 5, Funny


    So I guess Duke Nukem Forever is coming out soon.

    1. Re:Right after MOO3... by nEoN+nOoDlE · · Score: 1

      but where are my damn bubble cities?

      --
      Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
  9. The flying Exoeskeleton by ToKsUri · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Any relationship with the flying exoskeleton also sold at ebay? Are all thie flying vehicles prototypes ending at ebay? Is no one succeeding to end in a real shop?

    1. Re:The flying Exoeskeleton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Laugh, submitted that story to Slashdot..., they rejected it like all the buyers too!!!

  10. Question by unterderbrucke · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why would anyone buy this?

    It isn't approved for traffic, and it's pretty much a useless prototype.

    oh well, ebay auctions are great for slashdot articles at least...

  11. Um... why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why on earth would a company with something as groundbreaking as a flying car sell the prototype, especially a functional version?

    Surely it would be the one that you'd want to keep and the one that has the most company history in it so to speak. In any case, selling the prototype off seems very strange...

    1. Re:Um... why? by lexarius · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because the prototype is useless. Oh, sure, it flies and all, but what is a company going to do with a prototype? It's the designs that matter. The prototype is just to prove that the designs work and find where the flaws are. After that, it is an asset that isn't doing any work. So they turn it into money so they can afford to make the next version.

    2. Re:Um... why? by JohnFluxx · · Score: 4, Funny

      Personally I think it's all about insurance.

      It said that it can't do untethered flight because the insurance would go way up. Also they haven't yet tried any manned flights for the same reason.

      What they want is for someone to fly it. They are banking on that someone who pays $1m for a flying car is actually going to want to use it.
      Then they just check the darwin awards every day to see how long it lasts... :)

    3. Re:Um... why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Because it is a completely useless concept with no future?

      It is poweree by 4 rotary engines, and if any one fail, you will fall to the ground. The engine is a new and not very well tested type. Let's assume you are lucky, and each engine only fails every 4000 hours, your skycar will suffer a catasrophic crash every 1000 hours. And that is just the engines!!. A plane and even a helicopter can glide to a controlled ground impact. This will not.

      Statistically you will be much safer as a bull rider in a rodeo.

    4. Re:Um... why? by syadasti · · Score: 1

      Nah, in theory, the M400 can fly with only 2 operational engines. At least thats what its creators say. And its 3 onboard computers can take over each others operations if one or two of the three happen to fail. It has a parachute system and crumple zone nose cone.

    5. Re:Um... why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, there are 4 nacells with 2 engines each. 2x4 is 8. Eight engines. I believe their site gives some information about if x ammount of engines went out, and that you would still be alright. I believe that a sky car with 7 functioning engines would have amuch safer 'glide' or controlled drop than a chopper.

    6. Re:Um... why? by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      Actually, I read from a place or two that despite Moeller's assertions that it is a stable airplane, the FAA believes otherwise and wouldn't let him fly it unteathered.

      The sources I've read also paint the man as not much more than a politician crossed with a used car dealer (read: big fat liar).

      Take that however you like it.

    7. Re:Um... why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Moller has made good money in other products for years and this funds Moller sky car dream. However he has been coming up with a paper dream flying car and a prototype every 5 years or so for the last 20 years and nothing that flies yet. This is just another end of a dream prototype. Moller is all talk.

    8. Re:Um... why? by ScottKin · · Score: 1

      Try visiting the site, view the news & reviews, and check out the test-flight videos.

      It amazes me when nay-sayers never even bother to check the info provided; It flies, has done so on several occasions, but due to Insurance and FAA regulations it can't be flown *right now* by a pilot and it must be a tethered flight.

      Now, the FAA has already created an "assited lift" vehicle classification and has been working with Moller for a few years on the M400 and his other designs. Boeing also looked into this matter and came away with a fairly favorable report.

      Go ahead now and line-up behind the next person who would have laughed at Wilbur & Orville Wright!

      ScottKin

      --
      I don't give a rat's behind about "karma" here or anywhere else. Don't like what I have to say here? Deal with it!
    9. Re:Um... why? by Tacky+the+Penguin · · Score: 1

      The company has been around since the '70s, and hasn't sold much. They probably need the cash.

    10. Re:Um... why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Sometimes nay-sayers are right. I have built a plane myself, and flown a lot of experimantal aircrafts, including a 4'x8' sheet of plywood with a lawnchair and and a volkswagen engine with a propeller. (shoestring gyrocopter)

      A lot of amazing designs and a lot of variation. This contraption however is useless:
      1. Unneccesary unreliable design. What does this do that a tilt rotor or helocopter will not?It will crash, and you will die
      2. Fuel consumption must be worse than either (and is pretty bad for a helicopter already)

      You have to be pretty naive to not see this behind the cool look.

  12. I want one... by Kshu · · Score: 3, Funny

    And anyone who knows how roads in Romania look like will agree with me...

  13. Willy Wonka Where Are You? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I'd like to see a Chocolate Factory up for sale on eBay, that would make my day, then I could finally make chocolate gold pressed latnum bars!

    Oompa Loompa world!

  14. Affordable? by theNote · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The site says the car is "personally affordable".

    Then, when you click on the purchase link you find out it costs $1,000,000.

    1. Re:Affordable? by tjowatonna · · Score: 1

      that's only if you want one of the first 100 produced. If you don't care until after 400 have already been shipped it's only $500,000. [/satire]

    2. Re:Affordable? by Sgs-Cruz · · Score: 1
      "The number of UHNWIs rose 2.6% to just over 57,000 people at the end of last year." (Ultra-HNWIs have financial assets of more than U.S. $30 million.) "

      (See here for the details.)

      Of those 57,000 people, I'm sure one of them can afford a flying car :) I know I would if I had that kinda cash...

      --

      Karma: pi (Mostly due to circular reasoning in posts).

    3. Re:Affordable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      (Ultra-HNWIs have financial assets of more than U.S. $30 million.)


      I think that source is a little confused. "Assets in excess of $30 mil" and "Net worth in excess of $30 mil" are two very different things. So... which are they talking about?

    4. Re:Affordable? by pummer · · Score: 1

      If I had that cash, I'd get me one of these. W00T! 213' personal luxury submarine!

    5. Re:Affordable? by Bodrius · · Score: 1

      To me that just means the author of the quote (inventor/webmaster/marketeer) can personally afford the car.

      I don't see where's the confusion.

      --
      Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4, everything else follows...
  15. Doh! by JohnFluxx · · Score: 4, Funny

    I was all set to place a bid, and had my millions ready to put down. I complied with everything they wanted, then I saw right near the end it said:

    "You must be 18 years of age or older to Bid."

    dammit.

  16. Sweet If I get this... by slothbait · · Score: 1

    ... I can act out stuff from, Kevin Smith's The Flying car

  17. if 1000 slashdot readers jump on the car by deft · · Score: 3, Funny

    will it come down as fast as the server came down when 1000 slahsdot readers jumped on it?

    --

    There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
    1. Re:if 1000 slashdot readers jump on the car by sheean.nl · · Score: 1

      Due to the fact that it's not legal to fly this thing, it will probably not even come up....

      ...but 1000 slashdot readers jumping on it will probably turn it into a multi-million dollar piece of high-tech compacted metal.

      --

      If at first you don't succeed, then sky diving definitely isn't for you.
    2. Re:if 1000 slashdot readers jump on the car by Bodrius · · Score: 1

      For some strange reason this beckons the idea of someone-less-than-brilliant putting a web server in one of these things.

      Which would beg the question of what happens first:

      - 1000 simulatenous HTTP request bring the car down.
      - 1000-cumulative-pounds of slashdot readers bring the car down (physically).
      - 1 slashdot reader makes a Bewoulf cluster of 1000 of these things.

      --
      Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4, everything else follows...
    3. Re:if 1000 slashdot readers jump on the car by jkeyes · · Score: 1

      1 slashdot reader makes a Bewoulf cluster of 1000 of these things.

      I believe if you did that the US Air Force would deem you a terrorist and bomb you to pieces.

  18. Ah. eBay. by Big+Mark · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'm seriously tempted to put a bid in for this and not pay. I'd get the mother of all negative feedback then!

    Negative from SkyCar: Seller didn't pay and is a cunt. E-
    Response by ukmarkyboy: Admit it. You're the goatse man.

    -Mark

    1. Re:Ah. eBay. by saskboy · · Score: 1

      Hi,
      Could I please have your eBay userID so that I can promptly block you as a bidder?

      Much thanks,
      saskboy

      --
      Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
  19. Looks like by gearheadsmp · · Score: 2, Funny

    they'll have to use the income from the sale on e-bay to buy a new web server after this Slashdotting.

  20. Moller...bwahahahahaha by Alioth · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Moller's Skycar has been "six months away from flight" for longer than I've been alive. The thing is a nightmare from an inteference drag standpoint, and his figures for fuel consumption are totally unrealistic (especially as the BSFC for the type of engine he's using is worse than traditional spark-ignition reciprocating engines).

    Based on Moller's track record, the thing will _never_ fly. All it does is suck investment money. He's even worse than Bede (at least a few of Bede's aircraft actually flew and were successful).

    1. Re:Moller...bwahahahahaha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      Totally agree.



      More importantly, the design is flawed. The first basic rule of any aircraft design should be "can it glide back to earth in the event of a complete power failure?" Conventional aircrafts can glide and helicopters autorotates, the Moller Skycar will just drop like a rock.

    2. Re:Moller...bwahahahahaha by TerryAtWork · · Score: 1

      BSFC definition at

      http://www.westechperformance.com/pages/Tech_Lib ra ry/Understanding/bsfc.html

      --
      It's Christmas everyday with BitTorrent.
    3. Re:Moller...bwahahahahaha by brucet · · Score: 1

      The first basic rule of any aircraft design should be "can it glide back to earth in the event of a complete power failure?"

      So what happens to a helicopter in the event of a complete power failure?

    4. Re:Moller...bwahahahahaha by Tyler+Eaves · · Score: 1

      Autorotation. The blades don't just stopped. It''s basically a glide.

      --
      TODO: Something witty here...
    5. Re:Moller...bwahahahahaha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It autorotates usually ending in a relatively decent landing.

      see included link:
      http://www.kyosho.com/glossary-heli.html

    6. Re:Moller...bwahahahahaha by rindeee · · Score: 1

      Hey mister...you had better change that .sig and I mean NOW! It's not Palladium it's "next-generation secure computing base."

    7. Re:Moller...bwahahahahaha by TerryAtWork · · Score: 1

      This ok?

      --
      It's Christmas everyday with BitTorrent.
    8. Re:Moller...bwahahahahaha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      um? wtf do you know, have you seen the plans? did you work on it with him? stfu.

    9. Re:Moller...bwahahahahaha by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      I guess you have to change your sig.

      Jaysyn

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    10. Re:Moller...bwahahahahaha by jerryasher · · Score: 3, Informative

      The way autorotation works on a helicopter (not a gyrocopter) is truly amazing. It converts stored energy (height) into rotational energy (you rotate (twist) the blade to decrease their angle of attack "bite" so they spin really fast). Meanwhile you plummet. That's not true. You don't plummet. (But it sure looks that way.)

      When you get close to the ground (one chance!) you convert the rotational energy into lift. You retwist the blades generating enough lift to slow you to landing speed.

      I've only watched practice sessions. But I think the next step is to change your shorts.

    11. Re:Moller...bwahahahahaha by tadheckaman · · Score: 1

      gee, if you READ the web page, it says right there: 2 parachutes AND it has 8 engines total... So IF this thing dies at 20000 feet, you sorta aim it for the ground and level off at 5000 feet or something and pop the parachutes...

      --
      My potato gun was confiscated by the United Nations. They said I wasn't allowed to have weapons of mash destruction.
    12. Re:Moller...bwahahahahaha by spun · · Score: 3, Interesting

      My friend's dad taught helicopter flight in the navy. Two things would actually require a change of shorts on occasion. Autorotation landing was one. He also used to reset the altimiter in dual engine helicopters and have the cadet try to restart the engine before the copter crashed. The poor cadets would think they were about to pancake on the ground when they failed to restart the engine in time, when in reality they had hundreds of feet to spare.

      Now why would picturing some poor sap's mortal terror be so funny to me?

      You couldn't do that with autorotation practice, though. Like you said, you have one shot to do it right, otherwise you have used up all your rotational energy and are too close to the ground to restart the engines. You have to do it at the right time, I believe that the ground effect has something to do with it working right as well.

      Scary!

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    13. Re:Moller...bwahahahahaha by ScottKin · · Score: 1

      Geez - I don't think i've seen a bigger bunch of FLAMING IDIOTS than the "Armchair Aeronautical Engineers" posting on this thread!

      "Assisted Lift" does not need a low CD number to be a flying vehicle - look at most Helicopters; their CD is horrendous, but yet they fly.

      As to the Rotapower engines - I'd suggest you re-check your figures...that is, if you actually *did* any calculations.

      The M400 *has* flown, albeit in a tethered flight due to Insurance and FAA restrictions.

      So...your point is...????

      ScottKin

      --
      I don't give a rat's behind about "karma" here or anywhere else. Don't like what I have to say here? Deal with it!
    14. Re:Moller...bwahahahahaha by ScottKin · · Score: 1

      If you'd take a moment to review the technical information on the M400, you'll see that it's equipped with a rocket-launched parachute system - the same ones that are available for all light aircraft - in case of a catastrophic failure.

      If SOME of you people would take the few brain-cells you have left and do some studying on this, you wouldn't come-off sounding like totall morons who are more interested in making "a funny".

      Slashdot - where the merrits of a particular topic or object are totally decided by the posters on Slashdot, regardless of any other information exists, either "pro" or "con" to the subject, outside of Slashdot.

      --
      I don't give a rat's behind about "karma" here or anywhere else. Don't like what I have to say here? Deal with it!
    15. Re:Moller...bwahahahahaha by j_w_d · · Score: 1

      Specs from Moller's pages indicate that the vehicle is equipped with two parachutes that should be able to bring the entire vehicle down safely. The idea of providing entire aircraft with parachutes was originally explored I believe in a Scientific American article that argued that it was quite feasible to equip most aircraft with sets of parachutes that could bring a disabled craft down safely.

      --
      ------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
  21. Is there any other footage of the tests? by I+Am+The+Owl · · Score: 1

    They seem to be all in Real Media format, and I refuse to install that spyware-ridden piece of crapware called "RealOne". Links would be much appreciated, even to WMVs.

    --

    --sdem
    1. Re:Is there any other footage of the tests? by JohnFluxx · · Score: 1

      mplayer plays them. I know, I just tried.
      You might need to compile it in tho.

    2. Re:Is there any other footage of the tests? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      ummmm... did you try mPlayer?

    3. Re:Is there any other footage of the tests? by I+Am+The+Owl · · Score: 1

      Are you sure? I was reading the mplayer FAQ the other day for just this reason, and it said you needed to install RealOne to get the use of their libraries.

      --

      --sdem
    4. Re:Is there any other footage of the tests? by JohnFluxx · · Score: 1

      Probably. Or you could just find someone with the libraries and use that.
      All you are after is the codecs. You could always install it, copy over the codecs, and delete it again :)

    5. Re:Is there any other footage of the tests? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oooooh.... Don't let the folks at RealMedia get me... Oh no....

  22. Uhm... by andbutso · · Score: 1
    Potential buyers are cautioned that this is a prototype model and considered an experimental aircraft

    If it is still a protype and experimental then why don't they just wait until it is far more developed rather than offering a mediocre imitation of what they promise which will probably make itself very apparent as such?

    1. Re:Uhm... by JohnFluxx · · Score: 1

      They are selling it as a sort of piece of history in the making.
      If they improved it then sold it, it wouldn't be the first version, now would it?

    2. Re:Uhm... by Catbeller · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They need the money. Seriously need it.

      All the power to them: Moeller's been at this his whole life and he deserves to win one.

      And Kevin Smith should buy the freaking flying car!

    3. Re:Uhm... by RPI+Geek · · Score: 2, Informative

      If it is still a protype and experimental then why don't they just wait until it is far more developed...

      Well, the fact that it's considered an experimental aircraft does not necessarily mean it's unsafe. Just by the fact that it's flown (tethered or not) I'm sure that they've gone through the design process many times over.

      I used to fly Cessnas, and while I was at the airport, I'd frequently see a canard-style plane that was rated as experimental simply because it was a kit plane and the owner built it in his garage. The plane was not unsafe; the owner told me that it had excellent stall characteristics, that it gave a smoother ride than most conventional small planes he's been in, and that it was generally easier to fly because it had better visibility in all directions. Also, a friend of my father is building an amphibious plane in his garage, and once he gets it flying, it will be also be considered experimental simply because it's a kit plane. The plans for the particular model he's making are constantly changing, and many of the minor changes are his doing because he found better ways to build it as he progressed.

      Sorry for such a long post, I just wanted to clear up any confusion you had about 'experimental' meaning 'untested', because they are VERY different terms.

      --

      - "Nobody came out that night, not one was ever seen. But Old Man Stauf is waiting there, crazy sick and mean!"
  23. Ok... by Cyno01 · · Score: 4, Funny

    But when are we going to get the flying cars?!? Oh wait...

    --
    "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
  24. Not road legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it is not road legal

    Okay, is it just me or does the thing FLY.

  25. Test pilot by duckpoopy · · Score: 3, Funny

    This is their way of tricking some fool into paying to be the test pilot.

    --
    word.
  26. Does it come with... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a prototype of Duke Nukem Forever as well?

    *ducks*

  27. Pilot's License... by SwedishChef · · Score: 1

    Experimental aircraft (even experimental gliders) require a pilot's license. Good luck finding an instructor for this little gem.

    --
    No one ever had to evacuate a city because the solar panels broke!
  28. Pigs are flying... by spac · · Score: 5, Funny

    First MOO3, now a flying car?

    Can you hear that? It's hell... freezing over.

    1. Re:Pigs are flying... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      uh, this guy called. He wants his post back.

  29. Why is it..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That all the cool flying devices lately seem to be unable to um....how do i put this politely.....fly?

  30. Just you wait by sulli · · Score: 1

    until the San Francisco Board of Supervisors gets a hold of this idea.

    --

    sulli
    RTFJ.
  31. Vaporware no more? by bandwidthsignal · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's funny, I thought that Duke Nukem Forever would come out before flying cars did...

  32. So what .. you can probably buy your grandma.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    on eBay.

    Nothing to see really. Move along.

  33. Count me out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even though everyone and their Grandma has to go to university these days just to get a living job, I don't think people in general are disciplined and smart enough to handle a flying car.

  34. Roads? Where we're going... by mraymer · · Score: 3, Funny
    ...we don't need roads!

    [cue Back to the Future theme]

    Now, someone please tell me... when can I get my hands on a damn Mr. Fusion?! Ugh...

    --

    "To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit." -Stephen Hawking

  35. I love my Job by jlechem · · Score: 1

    It's so nice to see my POE benefitting humanity in such a good way. The weird shit I see pass through here everyday. Flying cars, frankenstein squirrels, there isn't anything some sucker won't buy or sell.

    But really I think they want the buyer to be the one to suffer the consequences if the thing explodes in midair. And I've always wondered when I was going to get my flying car!

    --
    Hold up, wait a minute, let me put some pimpin in it
  36. Legal to fly by mikewas · · Score: 4, Interesting
    This falls within the experimental aircraft catagory. This includes just about any aircraft that didn't come off of an assembly line including one-of-a-kind or kit-built aircraft as well as aircraft not designed for commercial use like warbirds.

    The Experimental Aircraft Asscociation is a group of people interested in these types of aircraft. There's a large airshow hosted by them in Osh Kosh.

    These aircraft are subjected to thorough inspection by certified mechanics and FAA inspectors during their construction or restoration. In addition, owners of this type of aircraft tend to be more knowledgable than your average privat pilot. The result is that aircraft certificated (it's an FAA term, not a typo) as experimental aircraft have an excellent safety record. You can fly them anywhere any other private aircraft may be flown.

    --

    "Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever." --Napoleon Bonaparte
    1. Re:Legal to fly by asparagus · · Score: 1

      Loosely related, but my dad's RV-7 is almost done.

      Gots to love the chain to the truck and the gas can kept in place by blocks. It's all in the details.

      -Brett

  37. Saw at the Texas State Fair (Dallas) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No kidding, it had several computer screens - they were C64s running on them. WTF. The function keys, from the keyboard were mounted to the left/right of each display.

    1. Re:Saw at the Texas State Fair (Dallas) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing wrong with C64s. Tons more reliable than Win CE running in a BMW, wouldn't you say?
      I know, I know, everyone has to go to university to get a living job these days, so everything *has* to be super complex in order to create all the jobs required by this marvelous system.

  38. Based on old technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pages are extremely slow? I wonder why :). Show me a vehicle based on anti-gravity or magnitec technology... then that will impress me.

  39. Segway by Esion+Modnar · · Score: 1

    I'd sooner buy a Segway, and I ain't buying a Segway. Travelling on highways is hairy enough without having to worry about power lines, birds, and oh yeah, that ever present assh*le who knows nothing about how to drive a flying car. Just a bad idea.

    You really want these things flying overhead? Home insurance would go up because of these things falling through your roof.

    I suspect that if flying horses ever once existed, we killed them off after the umpteenth horse turd ripped through our shingles.

    --

    They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
    1. Re:Segway by cat_jesus · · Score: 1

      All of the problems you mentioned can be solved. With the kind of computing power that we have today we could insist that such vehicles be piloted by computer only with a redundant computer system much like the shuttle,( no MS crap) 5 computers that all do the same computation and they vote on the answer.

      They make airplane parachutes that can actually prevent a hard crash.

      As I said, these are not unsurmountable problems. The solutions to these problems are available today.

      Cat

  40. Let's say these machines.... by Effofx · · Score: 2, Interesting

    become legal.

    Will there be a need for "flying" insurance?
    Will "fly-by" shootings get an extra ordinary amount of media attention like their grounded counterparts.
    Will fast food "fly-throughs" replace drive-up windows?
    How will the government tax - air space tax?

    --
    - Gentlemen, start your hybrids!
  41. is it just me by andih8u · · Score: 2, Funny

    or does that thing look like it could transform into an autobot? --

    --


    slashdot, news for crazed liberal socialist zealots
    1. Re:is it just me by ScottKin · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is just you.

      Now, go finish watching "Cartoon Network" - your grilled-cheese sandwich will be ready in a little bit.

      --
      I don't give a rat's behind about "karma" here or anywhere else. Don't like what I have to say here? Deal with it!
  42. It appears . . . by maxentius · · Score: 1

    the website hasn't flown untethered either.

    --
    Imagine a Beowulf cluster of neurons.
  43. Re:Um... why? Close... by Bullseye_blam · · Score: 1

    On their webpage, Moller said something about using the money generated from the car to fund its production. It looks like the link to that quote died, though...

  44. Moller , decades of vaporware by Animats · · Score: 1
    Moller's Skycar has been "six months away from flight" for longer than I've been alive.

    Yeah. I have Moller's brochure from 1974. His "Discojet" was supposed to be about a year from commercial delivery. That was 29 years ago.

    His "Skycar" doesn't fly. Hovering while suspended from a crane doesn't qualify as flying.

    In three decades Moller hasn't produced a free-flying prototype. That's inexcusable. Such things were built in the 1950s, after all. The AvroCar and the Hiller Flying Platform both flew in the 1950s. Stability was lousy, range was lousy, and fuel economy was lousy, but they flew. VTOL is only hard if it has to work well enough to be useful. If all you need is a cool demo, it's straightforward. But he can't even do that.

    Moller also claimed in 2001 to have a contract with CALTRANS for an unmanned "Aerobot" for bridge inspection, but that project doesn't seem to have been heard from since.

    1. Re:Moller , decades of vaporware by denisdekat · · Score: 1
      Hey, get the disco jet part right at least dude. Disco jet was the first name for a muffler now called supertrapp. Reason they changed the name was cause of the pop music scene at the time and the popularization of disco.

      So that project did indeed go through and not only that, it is considered by most who own motorcycles (ehem) the best racing muffler in the industry ....

    2. Re:Moller , decades of vaporware by Animats · · Score: 1

      Discojet was Moller's predecessor company, which did make mufflers as well as working on his flying machines. See this reference to a February 1976 article from Gadget Magazine. The company did use the name Discojet in connection with his saucerlike aircraft prototypes. The 1974 vaporware model had eight Wankel snowmobile engines set in a flying-saucer shape. It was really cool looking, but never got very far off the ground.

  45. Who would want one? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    How the hell is this ever going to replace the automobile? Listen to the noise that thing makes! It's like a couple dozen chainsaws all in chorus. The people who are near the testflights have to wear ear protectors and some kind of face masks to keep dust and other debris out of their mouth while breathing.

    Conversation of the future:

    Dad: OK kids! Let's get ready to fly! Don't forget your ear plugs and dust masks!
    Kids: Yay!

    1. Re:Who would want one? by MoonBuggy · · Score: 1

      I see your point, but if people don't build craptacular prototypes then we'll never get anything good. I'm sure the people that walked along with the flags in front of the first normal cars didn't think they would ever be able to do 250 MPH, or even a steady 60 for a few hours.

  46. Coool, i like this kind of crazy inventors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i don't think this is an investment fraud. These people just believe in their inventions. Cool.

  47. Oh Great! by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

    Now I can chase down those @#$$~~! birds after they shit on my newly waxed car!

    1. Re:Oh Great! by The+Zody · · Score: 1

      bugs? hell youre going to have to worry about alot more then that...think eagles...and...trees

  48. Cool toy except... by praedor · · Score: 1

    They are not designed so that you can really fly them. They were/are designed to fly themselves. You tell it where you want to go and it handles the rest.


    I have followed this thing since its inception years ago. They were looking to create a means for travel for more than just a few people (though the cost ensures that only a few trust-fundies will ever own one so it doesn't matter as much). They knew it would make the skies too dangerous for most yahoos with a car to transfer into the air, plus it would be an FAA licensing nightmare. Thus, they intended to take it out of the owner's hands and make it automatic. You may "drive" it out of the garage and taxi a ways, but when it comes time to fly somewhere, the intent is you enter the destination and let it rip. It takes you there, flown by itself with inputs from a still nonexistent system for air traffic control. You as the passenger would simply sit there and read, look out the window, play video games, etc, until the thing got to the destination and landed - then you could have it to taxi/drive to a parking spot.


    Give me total control over it - let ME fly the thing - and it becomes cool. Otherwise, its richboy trash.

    --
    In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
  49. No. by Goonie · · Score: 1
    No connection, except that they're both trying to build personal VTOL craft.

    As for whether anyone has succeeded, well, the closest thing you'll find is probably this Japanese mini-helicopter that was featured on /. a while ago. It flies, but from all reports it's not exactly the safest gadget ever made...

    --

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
    --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
  50. How to get prototype pilots... by haggar · · Score: 1

    ..that will even pay for the privilege!?
    This is the mother of all cunning ideas!

    --
    Sigged!
  51. I want to believe. by notestein · · Score: 1

    I've been following the Moller SkyCar for years. Like most vaporware it seems to always be just about to ship.

    I think my feelings are best summed up by Fox Mulder, "I want to believe!"

  52. Useless commentary. by rufusdufus · · Score: 1

    They scoffed at the Wright Brothers. Now we have Airplanes.
    They jibed Sikorsky. Now we have helicopters.
    They called Goddard a loon. Now we have rockets.

    You know what? All that bitching never helped. There simply is no benefit from it. Let the people with vision do their wacky things. Sometimes it won't pan out. Sometimes it will.

    Making progress is not easy. Complaints from the peanut gallery that it will never work because it hasnt been done before is just stupid.

    1. Re:Useless commentary. by Alioth · · Score: 1

      The difference between, say, Wright and Moller?

      The Wrights were true engineers with a methodical approach. So was Sikorsky. The naysayers in those cases were naysayers probably for the heck of it.

      But Moller?

      I'm well aware of making progress not being easy etc. Moller isn't even a wacky inventor, in my opinion he's a charlatan who's been taking a lot of people for a lot of money for far too long. Even Jim Bede, who's engineering talents have been questioned by many, has produced worthwhile flying machines. Moller exemplifies all that's wrong about TLAR (That Looks About Right) engineering. His claims aren't even realistic - they actually break the laws of physics. The efficiency figures he cites for his 8 Wankel-type engines are numbers that are not achievable in this universe.

      That's the difference. An engineer could critically evaluate what the Wrights were trying to achieve, and see it was actually within the laws of physics and realms of possibility. But Moller? Bwahahahahahahaha!

    2. Re:Useless commentary. by rufusdufus · · Score: 1

      You missed the point entirely. Have you never seen the claims hundreds of famous scientists made about flight? They said it would break the laws of physics!

      The Wright brothers were not famous scientists, just a couple of dudes. They used TLAR engineering. What you think they had wind tunnels and CAD programs? They are only praised as great engineers in HINDSIGHT because their efforsts panned out. They would have remained crackpots otherwise.

      Thank god they didn't listen to the naysayers!

    3. Re:Useless commentary. by denisdekat · · Score: 1

      Charlatan's don't invent the best racing muffler for motorcycles, so there must be some real "engineer" in him ;)

    4. Re:Useless commentary. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Wright Borthers were bicycle mechanics.
      Please people, learn your fucking history and get it right!

    5. Re:Useless commentary. by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1
      Have you never seen the claims hundreds of famous scientists made about flight? They said it would break the laws of physics!
      Do you have a citation of any reputable physicist (famous or not) saying that flight would violate the laws of physics?

      I kind of doubt it. Birds had been flying without breaking any physical laws for a very long time; everyone knew it was possible. Furthermore, and more relevantly, people had been flying gliders for decades before the Wright Flyer took off at Kitty Hawk. Controlled, human, heavier-than-air flight had been demonstrated to be entirely possible, and there were a lot of people in the race to add power to the equation. The Wright Brothers just (maybe) got there first.

      Now, there was a lot of skepticism that powered, controlled, heavier-than-air human flight would be achieved any time soon, because so many attempts had failed so spectacularly. But anyone who knew anything about aviation knew it was possible, and would happen sooner or later. Those who believed it was impossible were by and large members of the lay public, not scientists of any kind.

      Cranks and their supporters tend to overestimate the mockery which pioneers received. They didn't think Columbus would fall off the edge of the Earth; they didn't laugh at Newton or Darwin or Einstein. Skepticism, yes -- because skepticism is the appropriate reaction to an untried venture or unproven theory. Those few people who prove the skeptics wrong (the skeptics are far more often right, something which is often conveniently forgotten) deserve our applause. But outright mockery or disbelief is far more rare than would-be pioneers and their sycophants tend to believe.

      I'm not saying Moller is a crank, mind; I don't know enough about aeronautical engineering to judge one way or another. But saying "They laughed at ____ too" is not enough to counter those who say he is.
      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    6. Re:Useless commentary. by Alioth · · Score: 1
      You missed the point entirely. Have you never seen the claims hundreds of famous scientists made about flight? They said it would break the laws of physics!

      Name ten famous scientists who said that flight would break the laws of physics.

      The Wright brothers were not famous scientists, just a couple of dudes. They used TLAR engineering. What you think they had wind tunnels and CAD programs?

      This statement is wrong in every important respect, and it shows your lack of understanding of the differences between the Wrights and Moller.

      No, the Wrights weren't scientists. They were real engineers and they did NOT use TLAR engineering. They used a proper, methodical engineering approach, and a proper, methodical experimentation approach, slowly building up to the Wright Flyer. They didn't construct something that 'looked nice' then tried to fly it. They did have wind tunnels and extensively used them in research. Their wind tunnel still exists and can be seen at the Wright-Patterson Air Force museum in Ohio. They might not have had CAD programs, but they did know how to make a technical drawing.

      That is the difference between the Wrights and most of the other people trying for powered flight at the time. The Wrights had a proper engineering approach - the others didn't. That's why the Wrights succeeded and the others didn't.

      The difference between the Wright brothers and Moller is like night and day. I think it is you who miss the point entirely.

    7. Re:Useless commentary. by rufusdufus · · Score: 1

      Im not gonna dig up ten, but here a start:
      Lord Kelvin "Heavier than air flying machines are impossible."

      and look here.

    8. Re:Useless commentary. by Alioth · · Score: 1

      Well, Lord Kelvin (or those other two) hardly rank as the "hundreds" you originally claimed.

      It still says nothing about the approaches that Moller is taking and the Wrights took. As I said, the Wrights did have wind-tunnels, they did incrementally build up to their first powered flight by solving the problems not in a random way, but methodical and documented way. The other thing to remember about the vast majority of scientists is that they have less knowledge of aerodynamics than the typical private pilot.

      The thing is - what Moller is trying to do is NOT impossible. But Moller still hasn't reached the stage that the Hiller Flying Platform reached decades ago. Moller has said time and time again in the press that he was six months away. Years later he is still six months away. If he was taking a true engineering approach, he'd have at least made it as far as getting helicopter-style performance out of it - but all Moller has achieved is periodic newspaper articles about being 'six months away from flight'.

  53. Not anywhere by rufusdufus · · Score: 2, Informative

    You cannot fly experimental aircraft anywhere any other private aircraft may be flown. There are specific restrictions. From the FARs:

    "No person may operate an aircraft that has an experimental certificate over a densely populated area or in a congested airway"

    This includes over large cities and congested airspace within (usually) 30 miles of a large airport.

    1. Re:Not anywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is why they have been flying them, untethered, at a small airport in Solano County. Got up early one morning a few months ago and went down and watched them fly the thing up and down the main runway. Very cool. Very, very cool. Since they were friends with my Dad, we got to walk over and talk with them and they said they had 3 working models, and the bright red prototype they show off to the press which can't fly. Then a crowd of about 10 people had gathered, with cameras and video recorders, so they rolled the car back into a big truck and drove back to Davis.

    2. Re:Not anywhere by rufusdufus · · Score: 1

      what airport is that? I wanna go see!

  54. Finally! by spun · · Score: 1

    Weren't we all supposed to be driving aircars by now? And where the hell is my lunar hotel? Why aren't we all using picture phones?

    Dammit, this technology of the future thing isn't all it's cracked up to be. I wan't my personal robotic assistant!

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  55. SoloTrek XFV Prototype Aircraft on ebay - anyone? by Repran · · Score: 1
    Visit ebay or /. to refresh your memory.

    Anyway - this thing almost went for $6.7 Million US but got pulled becuase people assumed that it was operational, which it wasn't.

    Seems this inspired the competition ;-)

    --

    -- Contradictions only exist in thought - not in reality.

  56. BTAF's take on the subject: by haggar · · Score: 1
    --
    Sigged!
  57. The standard reply to the credulous... by Goonie · · Score: 1
    They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
    -- Carl Sagan

    fortune (6) is the font of all wisdom :)

    --

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
    --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
  58. Possible use... by Black_Logic · · Score: 1

    I bet bank robbers could really
    get some use out of this tech. :)

    --
    Ansi's and stupid tricks!
  59. big picture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Geez people cant you see this is just a plot to lure saddam into provoking a war? saddam buys sky car, intends to use it to spray chemicals over US population.

  60. Autorotation : was Re:Moller...bwahahahahaha by dmh20002 · · Score: 1

    An engine failure in a helicopter is a lot safer than one in an airplane. I'll take it over a dead-stick in a plane any day.

    When autorotating, if you have a space the size of a football field you can land on it easily with no damage. If you have a clear spot the size of a tennis court you can hit it with some hard landing damage but nothing catastrophic. You will land with virtually no forward speed, and maybe some vertical speed depending on skill.

    A conventional airplane needs just as much room to land power off as power on. even the smallest normal planes need 1000 feet or more to land (yes, yes some STOL planes get in under that). If you don't have a runway you will hit the ground with a forward speed of 100 mph or so and be in for a really scary ride, usually killing you in the process.

    Helicopters have other failure modes that are pretty hairy (loss of main rotor, tail rotor or transmission failure) where you will drop like a rock. But the wings come off airplanes too.

    retired army aviator, rotary and fixed wing rated.

    all that said, the previous poster was right about the Moller being hyped for years and never working. 8 engines doesn't help when you run out of gas. And people run out of gas in airplanes every day.

    1. Re:Autorotation : was Re:Moller...bwahahahahaha by jerryasher · · Score: 1

      Ah, but the three onboard computers will ensure the engines never run out of gas!

      I have no experience in helicopters and only a hundred hours in fixed wing planes, so I assure you, I only envy you your experience and knowledge. When I was learning to fly, I used to watch the Pomona PD practice autorotations, and like I said it was much more thrilling to watch those than to watch a private plane practice power off landings. And the helicopters always landed safely....

      Back to Moller and things that can plummet, I found it very interesting that they are to be licensed in this new flight category: powered lift. That sounds to my fearful consumer ears as "no power, no lift, plummet", but Moller claims without providing evidence that the skycar has a reasonable glide rate. Seems hard to believe, the thing barely has any wings. And then for powered off landings, it definitely relies on TWO parachutes....

      Still and all, I will happily take possession of the 1500th one off the assembly line (well, as long as it has cup-holders.)

  61. Moller is a scam artist, stop it already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Stop reposting this damned story over and over.

    Moller has been bilking investors with promise of an air car "real soon now" since the 80's. This unit, if you buy it, won't even be capable of flight... they say "with the engines removed" but more like "because it never could fly in the first place".

    1. Re:Moller is a scam artist, stop it already by ScottKin · · Score: 1

      Hmmmm - sounds like someone is in a crabby mood.

      What's wrong - not enough "Microsoft Flames" posted here this weekend?

      Someone steal your idea for the "Nekkid ch|xors with Rubber Duckies" web site???

      Go take a nap - I'm giving you your 10-day "Time-out"

      ScottKin

      --
      I don't give a rat's behind about "karma" here or anywhere else. Don't like what I have to say here? Deal with it!
  62. Not Safe by dubbayu_d_40 · · Score: 1

    Even a helicopter can land if it's engines fail. That thing will fall like a rock, and the passengers will die.

    1. Re:Not Safe by worst_name_ever · · Score: 1

      The Moller philosophy on engine failure seems to be "put a few dozen engines in the thing so at least a few will always work!"

      --

      In Soviet Rush, today's Tom Sawyer gets high on you.
  63. "Purchase Skycar" yields 404 Not Found by dpbsmith · · Score: 1

    When I went to athe Moller website and clicked on Purchase Skycar, I got this response:

    "Not Found
    The requested URL /purchase was not found on this server.

    Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

    Apache/1.3.27 Server at www.moller.com Port 80"

    I think I'll be watching the eBay auction with interest... and I'm certainly going to check out the feedback the buyer leaves for the seller.

    1. Re:"Purchase Skycar" yields 404 Not Found by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even better - they sell videos in betamax format...

      4.22. How can I obtain a video of the M400 Skycar?
      The M400 has accomplished many successful tethered flights and test flight footage is included on our most recent compilation video which can be purchased via our sales page. In addition, test footage in BETA format is included in our Media Kit also available via the sales page.

    2. Re:"Purchase Skycar" yields 404 Not Found by phong3d · · Score: 1

      Right, because some video production facilities and newsrooms still use BETA. Note how they say it's part of the Media Kit.

  64. It drives on alcohol... by Hudjakov · · Score: 0

    You'll never get a licence to drive it here in Russia.

  65. How practical! by TheAntiCrust · · Score: 1
    From your garage to your destination, the M400 Skycar can cruise comfortably at 350+ MPH and achieve up to 28 miles per gallon. No traffic, no red lights, no speeding tickets. Just quiet direct transportation from point A to point B in a fraction of the time. Three dimensional mobility in place of two dimensional immobility.

    WTF??? And what happens when all those thousands of people on the freeway ALL have one of these? People can barely handle the two dimensions they have to deal with now. Add a third, and the casualty rates for driving will sky-rocket (all puns intended). You think you will be able to go straight to your destination? and what about major metropolitain areas with those skyscraper things. How the hell are you gonna land the damn thing? Im just going to call up my school and tell them to install a flying car landing pad? Oh yeah, and what about running out of gas... at 350 MPH... 100 feet above the ground. Idiots...

    1. Re:How practical! by WetCat · · Score: 1

      See latest Star Wars episode - a good illustration to that nightmare...

  66. Moller is a crook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This guy is a crook and a scam artist and is no better than the dozens of "revolutionary inventors" just like him. He's been around spouting this bullshit for 20 years, why are perfectly respectable media outlets still giving him press and treating this thing like it's real??? This is the same thing as the free energy machines, or the guy who could give you TV quality video over a normal phone line and 56k modem. For some reason Moller seems to be immune to the persecution he deserves.

  67. De Javu' all over again? by Starman9x · · Score: 0
    wasn't this on /. about a week ago?

    Hmmm... [checking...]

    Ahh yes -- here it is -- "Buy your own exoskeleton flying vehicle"

    yup, modus operandi seems to be the same: sell a vehicle that has only made "tethered flights" on e-bay with a starting bid of $1 million and a proviso that you can't fly it [in order to figure out the fact it probably cannot fly in the first place...]

    (ok, looks like a bit more than a week -- that one was dated jan 11th...)

  68. VOD is coming over 56k by agentofchange · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Look here, this Australian company has licenced the technology that has even done demos. Check out this site: http://www.mediaworld.com.au/mwb.html

  69. You need to lay off the smack by Sacarino · · Score: 1

    What the hell are you smoking, anyways?

    A conventional airplane needs just as much room to land power off as power on. even the smallest normal planes need 1000 feet or more to land (yes, yes some STOL planes get in under that). If you don't have a runway you will hit the ground with a forward speed of 100 mph or so and be in for a really scary ride, usually killing you in the process.

    Uh, bullshit. Each and every plane has a different best-glide speed. A Cub or 152 that rotates at 45/50k or whatever sure isn't going to need to be doing an approach at your speeds. And a lot of GA still flies those, so don't give me the excuse nobody uses those anymore. Now, I'll give you that trying the flying brick approach with a "doctor-killer" Bonanza or a Saratoga means things need to happen at a quicker speed but it's still no less safe.

    Helicopters have other failure modes that are pretty hairy (loss of main rotor, tail rotor or transmission failure) where you will drop like a rock. But the wings come off airplanes too.

    Respectfully, if you ARE a retired Army aviatior and you fly without knowing anything about the maintenance history of an aircraft you deserve what you get. I would never fly a machine that I was not allowed to see the logbooks for. Knowing your mechanic and trusting him accounts for quite a bit too, as I'm sure you know. And honestly, how often do wings just fall off an airplane? ;)

    --
    -- El Sacarino tiene gusto de la chocha
    1. Re:You need to lay off the smack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Smack? jeez. I was rounding on the 100 mph. Ok, so its somewhere between 50 and 150 mph forward speed. and yes, if its a Cub or a STOL lightplane you are in pretty good shape. I was trying to keep a balanced discussion.

      I don't think I said anything about logbooks. In the military you can see the logbooks anytime. But since the discussion was about unexpected failures of the Moller aircar, I was just balancing the discussion. Sometimes things happen that don't have anything to do with maintenance or logbooks. Things break and things fall out of the sky.

      As for wings coming off airplanes, it usually happens as the result of a pullout from speed, maybe with a lot of load. Like the forest service C-130 that crashed. (watch the video). But typically it occurs in an IFR loss of control where you get into a dive or spiral and pull out too hard. Like the bonanza you mentioned. They have a failure mode called divergent spiral that can rip the wings off on a nice clear day.

    2. Re:You need to lay off the smack by dmh20002 · · Score: 1

      forgot to log in first try.

      Smack? jeez. I was rounding on the 100 mph. Ok, so its somewhere between 50 and 150 mph forward speed. and yes, if its a Cub or a STOL lightplane you are in pretty good shape. I was trying to keep a balanced discussion.

      I don't think I said anything about logbooks. In the military you can see the logbooks anytime. But since the discussion was about unexpected failures of the Moller aircar, I was just balancing the discussion. Sometimes things happen that don't have anything to do with maintenance or logbooks. Things break,things get broken by pilot error, and things fall out of the sky.

      As for wings coming off airplanes, it usually happens as the result of a pullout from speed, maybe with a lot of load. Like the forest service C-130 that crashed. (watch the video). But typically it occurs in an IFR loss of control where you get into a dive or spiral and pull out too hard. Like the bonanza you mentioned. They have a failure mode called divergent spiral that can rip the wings off on a nice clear day.

    3. Re:You need to lay off the smack by Sacarino · · Score: 1

      As for wings coming off airplanes, it usually happens as the result of a pullout from speed, maybe with a lot of load. Like the forest service C-130 that crashed [cbsnews.com]. (watch the video). But typically it occurs in an IFR loss of control where you get into a dive or spiral and pull out too hard. Like the bonanza you mentioned. They have a failure mode called divergent spiral that can rip the wings off on a nice clear day.

      Welllllll.... I'll agree with you that if you exceed Vne you're going to snap the wing spar clean off the airframe, but really... that's why it's Vne, you know?

      With this skycar, I'd be more concerned about this fire-and-forget guidance system designed to fly you around automatically. Seems that would rely heavily on the yet-to-be-finished Highway In The Sky (HITS) system NASA and the FAA have been kicking around.... I don't think I'd prefer that to shooting my own approaches with VORs.

      --
      -- El Sacarino tiene gusto de la chocha
  70. Re: Mr. Fusion by maddogsparky · · Score: 1
    Try www.fuser.net. They already have a fusion device, according to their neutron counts.

    They're still working on that part about making more engergy than they are using...

    --
    science is a religion