Flying Car More Economical Than SUV

fusion812 writes "The M400 needs 35 clear feet to take off but thanks to its 770 hp engine can whiz to 365 mph - cruise control kicks in at 326 mph - and climb at 6,400 feet per minute. You may hear it before you see it: it emits a rather noisy 65 dba at 500 feet. Interestingly, with a fuel consumption of 20 miles to the gallon on the road, it's rather more economical than a Sports Utility Vehicle (SUV) and looks positively eco-friendly compared to a Hummer."

Comments

MPG not important

[jepaton]

Moller said that today's economics give each M400 a theoretical price tag of around half a million dollars, but in volume production it could drop to $300,000 and in really large volumes to below $50,000.

If you can afford one of these the MPG isn't going to be an issue.

Re:MPG not important

[Anonymous Coward]

There is more than just the cost to an individuals pocket. There is also the environment to think about. I would never dream of buying a car that did 20 to the gallon. Seems like a lot needs to change before Americans start to think about the environment.

Re:MPG not important

[margycdb]

Well, there's also the ecological cost of the materials that build the car themselves. I'm not positive what it's made of but I would guess that given the danger/ability to crash while going really fast and thus need to be safer/the strength required to make it fly, it would require much more environmentally damaging materials

Re:MPG not important

[SillyNickName4me]

You usually cannot afford such things when you just throw away your money...

Re:MPG not important

[kunudo]

If you can afford one of these, buy them to get the price down so the rest of us can afford them :D

Seriously though, drunk drivers etc would be a REALLY big problem with these. We'd have to implement some kind of blood test device in the car, checking that it is indeed the owner of the car it's taking a sample from, and checking the alcohol level at the same time.

Re:MPG not important

[kfg]

If you can afford one of these the MPG isn't going to be an issue.

And it certainly brings new meaning to the word "economical." If he keeps saying that word I'll have to start wondering if he knows what it means.

I can just see people trying to put in enough miles to make one of these things more "economical" than an SUV.

"I'll be back next month honey. I have to put in a quick million miles so that the car looks like it made economic sense to buy. On paper at least. If you kinda squint, and write the numbers really small, and drop off a dozen zeros or so. But at least it gets better milage than an SUV, so I'll be saving the enviroment while I'm flying it. If you squint really hard."

KFG

Re:MPG not important

[usrusr]

while this screams for that silly old boring "drink+drive? take drugs+fly" joke, i wonder if a drunk person in one of those would really be more a problem. i mean, there is just so much more room in the air than on a street, try to hit a tree when you're on 200 ft. and for this m400 to be anything practical, i'd expect stuff like starting/landing to be quite automated anyway. but the most important point is still: you can cause so much destruction with a high powered car if you really loose any self control due to drunkenness, it would not matter much if you'd sit in a high powered flying car instead. so in a way, said device would be a good idea for any form of high powered transpoertation.

Re:MPG not important

[bwalling]

I can just see people trying to put in enough miles to make one of these things more "economical" than an SUV.

I was in an elevator a few weeks ago with the owner of a brand new Hummer. He was complaining about the fuel economy (I have no sympathy for him there). He said that there would be a diesel version in two years, and he was going to buy that one because he could save money on gas. It was incredibly difficult to not just start laughing at him.

Re:MPG not important

[kunudo]

Well, if you were out of control and were going to land in a residential area, you could smash up houses, plow kids away in the street. Downtown you could slam into office buildings. Some would do it on purpose. I'd love for the to become common, but I think someone should invent forcefields for buildings first... :)

Re:MPG not important

[Anonymous Coward]

you can do most of that with a car as well ... never played gta3? ;)

Re:MPG not important

[SEWilco]

Follow the links and you'll see what a Skycar is made of. The speed does not require much stronger materials than a car requires. If you've ever crashed you know a car doesn't withstand anything over a few MPH.

You'll also see that the Skycar has two parachutes. The first models will require a pilot's license, but by the time consumers are buying them the high speed flight will only be done under computer control. Manual flight will be slow, and taking a car out of manual mode will make it shed the speed before you get close to anything...because "manual mode" still involves asking the computers to move the thing.

Re:MPG not important

[Planesdragon]

He said that there would be a diesel version in two years, and he was going to buy that one because he could save money on gas. It was incredibly difficult to not just start laughing at him.

You obviously have no idea how car sales work.

Two years is about the average time for a lease--and if he purchased the Hummer right, he'll have paid no more than a lesee after the two years. He can give the non-disel Hummer to the dealer, spend only about two more years of payments, and get a great fuel cost reduction--oh, and two more years of warranty et al.

Re:MPG not important

[Anonymous Coward]

If you can afford one of these the MPG isn't going to be an issue.

Unless you run out of fuel midair.

KABOOM!

Re:MPG not important

[ralfg33k]

My wife and I just howled with laughter at this one: this Hummer owner is the kind of schmuck who goes home, kicks his dog, then complains the next day that his foot hurts.

Re:MPG not important

[Anonymous Coward]

in volume production it could drop to $300,000 and in really large volumes to below $50,000.

If there's that many flying cars whizzing around, I'm staying grounded.

Re:MPG not important

[bwalling]

You obviously have no idea how car sales work.

Two years is about the average time for a lease--and if he purchased the Hummer right, he'll have paid no more than a lesee after the two years. He can give the non-disel Hummer to the dealer, spend only about two more years of payments, and get a great fuel cost reduction--oh, and two more years of warranty et al.

It's cheaper to keep your car for 10 years (or more) than it is to get a new one every two. Sure, you pay some repair costs, but nothing close to a monthly car payment. A marginal increase in fuel economy will not make up for a car payment, either.

Re:MPG not important

[Breakfast Cereal]

No kidding. The next flying vehicle to take out a skyscraper won't be piloted by a suicidal terrorist, it'll be piloted by some asshat yuppie on a cell phone.

Honestly, most people aren't fit to drive (or at least there are enough such people that it seems like most people). How about some decent public transportation instead? Get the idiots off the road/out of the air and burn less fuel.

People who aren't willing to pay taxes for public transit because they personally won't use it should consider the benefit they receive in the form of getting all those other people off the road. Think about it. Most elderly people, for example, would rather not drive.

Re:MPG not important

[drinkypoo]

Incidentally he was the owner of a brand new H2, not a Hummer. The Hummer came as a diesel from day one. The H2 is an "upgraded" Chevy Tahoe. I'm guessing you could make a tahoe that kicked the H2's ass for less money, but I haven't actually priced the parts (as I am not in the market for a gas guzzler.)

Re:MPG not important

[Anonymous Coward]

It was incredibly difficult to not just start laughing at him.

You're a much better person than I am. It would've been incredibly difficult for me to not just kick him in the shins. (I would've kicked in the balls, but based on his mode of transportation I'm guessing they're too tiny to feel anything).

Re:MPG not important

[UniverseIsADoughnut]

Mileage and Emissions arn't connected completely except for CO2 which isn't currenlty a concern. Getting the highest mileage and getting the lowest emissions as the same time isn't possible. To run an engine at it's most efficient points has trade offs in emissions.

At any rate this is dumb. Since for one most SUVs do better then 20mpg (not all SUVs are huge things, most are small and do no worse then a bigger car, or a high end car).

Also, across the board this thing would get piss poor mileage, how often are you going to be going very fast, most the time you would eb going slow, or doing take offs, you mileage will be poor. Everyone knows planes crusing get good mileage, so what is the big surprise there. Also it's powered using a wankel engine, those engines even as improved as they have got still have worse emissions when gasoline powered then your typical piston engine.

Re:MPG not important

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not about someone affording to buy that much gas, it's about spending our natural resources more conservatively.

Re:MPG not important

[UniverseIsADoughnut]

yeah, many of us know that you should keap your car for a long time since it will save you a lot of money. But so many people have this "need" to have a new vehicle every 3 years.

Keap a vehicle for 10 years that doesn't get the best mileage is far cheaper then replacing a vehicle every 3 years even for ones that get better mileage.

Really doesn't even take that long, just 6 years or so will do. When your not paying car payments for a few years, it frees up a lot of money.

Re:MPG not important

[Planesdragon]

It's cheaper to keep your car for 10 years (or more) than it is to get a new one every two.

Yes, it is. But if you're not satisfied with your current car, "trading it in" is perfectly acceptable.

If you were really dead-set on saving money, you'd buy low mileage used cars and keep them maintained yourself. Most people don't have the facilities or the time to do that, though.

Re:MPG not important

[RackinFrackin]

The next flying vehicle to take out a skyscraper won't be piloted by a suicidal terrorist, it'll be piloted by some asshat yuppie on a cell phone.

Unlicensed people piloting aircraft is definitely a big concern, but I seriously doubt that an M400 or similar craft could take out a skyscraper, thanks to its relatively small size and fuel capacity.
The Empire State Building survived a direct hit by a B-25, which is much heavier than an M400.

Re:MPG not important

[Short Circuit]

a car doesn't withstand anything over a few MPH.

That's for consumer safety.

It doesn't matter how long it takes for a car to stop from 55mph, a passenger still has to lose the same amount of kinetic energy. The longer the distance used to stop the passenger, the less peak force is imparted on him. The less peak force, the less damage done to his body.

Re:MPG not important

[HTMLSpinnr]

Whether CO2 is an issue is debatable. Many have shown that it's a greenhouse gas and does contribute to "global warming".

Look at temp trends over the past 50 years, it seems we're already on our way there.

Re:MPG not important

[AKnightCowboy]

If you can afford one of these the MPG isn't going to be an issue.

Considering the number one reason to buy a huge SUV is because you have to haul a lot of people or shit around (number two is probably dick size compensation), this flying car is pretty useless. You might as well buy a Honda Civic Hybrid. It'd be much cheaper and have a lot more room.

Re:MPG not important

[Knetzar]

I wonder what caused the last ice age...not enough greenhouse gasses?

Seiously though, there is a lot we don't understand about our climate. The Earth has gone through and will continue to go through massive climate changes. Just because the climate is changing doesn't mean it's related to CO2. Then again, it might be, personally I don't know, but in order to convince me, you need to give a little more proof then global climate changes.

Re:MPG not important

[gumbi west]

Why then is the number one complaint from Hummer owners the milage?

Re:MPG not important

[igny]

20 miles to the gallon on the road.

I dont get it, is it on the way up or on the way down?

Re:MPG not important

[Overzeetop]

Most SUV owners would kill for 20mpg in the real world. Heck, I got a Honda Pilot to tote the family around in and haul all my junk. It's a "mid sized" SUV, and I have to be on the highway for most of the tank to get over 20MPG (got almost 24 on a 300mi trip recently, but that doesn't make up for the 16-17 it gets going back and forth over the mountain I live on.)

The ever popular mid-sized Dodge Durango claimes 12/16, but from all the folks I've heard from, they've never seen anything that good. And don't forget that the real gas hogs don't have EPA milage stickers, as anything over 8500lbs GVWR doesn't have to have them. That would include the H1 and Dodge's V10 powered stuff, as well as others (sorry, I'm not usually in the market for a 40k-120k vehicle).

I suspect you could count on one hand the number of (distinct) SUVs which get better than 20MPG on the city side of the EPA sticker.

Re:MPG not important

[FrYGuY101]

The Moller Sky Car is exactly what the name implies. A Sky Car . It can fly, and it can also drive on the road. It has an engine which propels it via the wheels and not the engine nacelles while on the road. Since legally, you have to take off at an FAA approved airstrip or Helipad (Since it's VTOL capable), this means you can drive to the airport/helipad, and take off from there. It is LITERALLY a Flying Car.

Re:MPG not important

[FrYGuY101]

Ahem. No.

A craft a little larger than the M400 hit the Bank of America building in Tampa. The damage was 1 window, and the office was pretty trashed.

On an interesting aside, the office 4 floors below the one which got trashed belonged to my brother's boss.

Re:MPG not important

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the tank doesn't hold enough and they have to re-fuel often. You didn't think it was the cost of gas, did you?

Re:MPG not important

[cujo_1111]

You might as well buy a Honda Civic Hybrid. It'd be much cheaper and have a lot more room.

Using that brilliant logic, the next time you want to go overseas, forget taking a 747, jump on a yacht and sail there.

Even though it may take longer, it is more efficient.

Re:MPG not important

[gfxguy]

What about 20MPG for a vehicle that can "drive" straight to it's destination and never gets stuck in traffic?

I'd say that's probably the equivilent of 35 to 40 MPG in a road bound car. Also, according to the web page for the M400, the vehicle gets 28MPG.

Re:MPG not important

[gfxguy]

My 93 Civic gets better gas mileage than new (non-hybrid) Civics. A lot of older cars, especially ones with smaller engines, get better gas mileage.

Re:MPG not important

[gfxguy]

I'd say the number one reason is what you pass off as number two, but what I really wanted to address is the second sentence...

First, if you look at the web page for the M400, you'll see it seats four. I don't see how unless it's wider than looks in the photo, but still... seats four.

Second, if the vehicle gets 20MPG, and the Civic hybrid gets what? Around 48 (EPA estimate)?

So that's 48MPG, stuck in traffic, zig-zagging and turning in all different directions, while the M400 would, presumably, be able to fly straight to it's destination without any traffic. And the web page says 28MPG, not 20. But assuming it is 20, I'd say that the gas mileage is very close, if you measured miles "as the crow flys." For some trips this may not be true, but it certainly is almost always true of people's commutes.

Re:MPG not important

[F34nor]

You aren't that bright are you? Moller's engines are VERY
low emmsion. In fact they complete with Honda 4 stroke LEV engines but have a power to weit ratio that matches a Rotax 2 stroke. The motors that power the Skycar should be in every JetSki, Snowmobile, Ultralight/Microlight, and any other highpower low weight application. Hell these things should be powering hybrid gas electric cars for that matter.

That may be so...

[acehole]

But the cost of the flying car would be significantly more than an SUV.

What of the costs for learning how to drive/fly one of these things?

I'm not really looking forward to the time where people who run out of gas/petrol simply fall out of the sky to their deaths and those on the ground.

Would you let a cletus like character behind the wheel of one of these things?

Re:That may be so...

[nkh]

for learning how to drive/fly one of these things?

Please, you're on Slashdot, we already know how to drive flying cars! Or have I wasted all these years playing video games?

Re:That may be so...

[in7ane]

"Would you let a cletus like character behind the wheel of one of these things?"

This will breathe new life into the Darwin Awards. Seriously though, we license people to drive, we also license people to fly aircraft, one would imagine that we could license people to fly these things as well. And from what I've read about it it seems that there are a lot of electronics for safety (so not going to fall out of the sky when fuel runs out) and control (stabilization mainly I guess).

What, no 'but what if terrorists use it' argument yet? I'm disappointed :/

Re:That may be so...

[Anonymous Coward]

Moeller's vision includes GPS-based central navigation systems and redundant systems on the aircar (each of the four power pods has two rotary engines apiece, etc). Supposedly this will be easier to use than a car due to portal-to-portal navigation and "autopilot" control.

So it won't be too hard to program the controls to sense the gas level in the tank and not let you take off until you have enough fuel to get to your destination.

The advantage of his air-car over automated ground transportation ("cars that drive themselves") is that the air provides a three-dimensional medium for vehicles, while roads are strictly two-dimensional and limited by other uses for the space. So with proper control and coordination you can have many more aircars travelling without interference from each other in a space that's not constrained by competeing uses (until we work out anti-gravity and have living spaces floating in the sky...)

Re:That may be so...

[Jon Kent]

The question we might want to be asking ourselves is do we want a cletus like character behind the wheel of any motor vehicle? With the right infrastructure and electronic pilot assist (in car), is it really inconcievable that at some point in the distant future we will be a nation of flying-car owners?

Re:That may be so...

[Ckwop]

Gyrocopters would make good civilian flying cars.. They're easy to learn (about 30 odd lessons) and if they run out of fuel they autorotate automatically.. they fall gently and safely.

You can take off and land vertically. Though you need a jumping mechanism to take off vertically as they can't hover. Typical take off distance is less than 50 meters without jumping mechanism.

They're less fuel efficient and slower than their fixed wing counterparts. You can expect a top speed of 116mph on most commericial models.

If they became more prevalent i'd expect the low flight speed and fuel efficiency would become diminish.

The main problem with the gyrocopter is that the angle of the blades to the horizon has to be great enough to provide lift at low speeds for landing and take off. If this angle could be changed in flight then you can fly faster and more economically.

I'd like to see a lot gyrocopters in the sky.. They're great!

Simon.

Re:That may be so...

[Anonymous Coward]

You haven't got much knowledge of flying, do you ?

Nor have you read Moller's website.

And by the way, planes run out of gas now, and some of them
crash after this.

But if you had bothered to READ before shooting off your mouth
you'd know that the Moller Skycar has a ballistic parachute.

God, there are SO many idiots out there. WHY didn't your parents use a safety device called abortion, in your case ?

Re:That may be so...

[ziggy_zero]

I'm sure the licensing would be much more akin to an airplane license.

Oh, and...

What if terrorists get a hold of these flying cars?! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH WE'RE ALL DOOMED

DOOMED I SAY

Re:That may be so...

[M1FCJ]

Airspace is quite controlled as well, at least in Europe. Where you can fly is pretty regulated. There are volumes of space left for small aircraft but still you are pretty limited (as the roads are).

The nice thing is given a separation distance, air traffic can still hold enormous volumes.

On the other hand while driving on the ground I only have to live two seconds worth of distance as a minimum between my car and the guy in front of me. On air, this distance is much much longer. The traffic might be still pretty bad.

Re:That may be so...

[M1FCJ]

Can't you stall? What about extreme high angle of attack situations? I've never been on these and I don't know the physics of it (I'm quite familiar with classic aircraft design and calculations). If they are so great, why no medium scale implementation exists? The only ones I saw were the small, lightweight implementations.

Re:That may be so...

[Anonymous Coward]

How did this "Acehole's" comment get modded
4 / interesting ?

I'll tell you how : most of the people who read /.
are completely comfortable commenting on something
they know little or nothing about, and hoping no one
will recognize they are fools.

How many of you are licensed pilots ? Huh ?

How many of you are licensed pilots AND degreed mechanical
engineers ?

And by the way, "cletus- like" characters fly airplanes every day,
and some of them are better pilots than some arrogant neurosurgeon. Don't believe me ? Stop by any cropdusting
operation and talk to the good old boys who run the show.

Re:That may be so...

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Exactly! We also know how to use lightsabres and "force choke" people, in case someone detects The Force.

Re:That may be so...

[SillyNickName4me]

> So it won't be too hard to program the controls to sense the gas level in the tank and not let you take off until you have enough fuel to get to your destination.

Well.. technically true of course, but seeing how people already have a lot of trouble 'programming' their video to display something else then a blinking 0:00 (or 12:00 dependign on model) I doubt they are going to be able to put in a destination so that the car could calculate if it has enough fuel..

Re:That may be so...

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

> Gyrocopters would make good civilian flying
> cars.. They're easy to learn (about 30 odd
> lessons) and if they run out of fuel they
> autorotate automatically..

And you land in a crowd, or on the side of a building and tip off and die. No, the lawyers will incinerate companies like this. Both sky cars and gyrocopters, for general use, will need computer control to manage fuel, takeoffs, and landings.

Actually, sky cars should be very safe. With multiple engines, the computer could keep it flying even if one engine goes doen, enough for a safe landing. They would have their own network of radar and computer control so they can fly around each other. The passenger will rarely "drive" this. Enter destination, push a button, and go.

Re:That may be so...

[buzzcutbuddha]

So you have to pay more to get the thing initially. Boo hoo. You can fly at 326mph to your destination and get better gas mileage. So you have save time and cash on your commute, or going wherever. Is it really that hard to see the long-term economic benefits?

At 326mph I could get to work in 9 minutes. That alone is worth the price of admission.

And, btw, intelligence is absolutely no indicator of someone's ability to pilot or steer or drive a machine. I've seen plenty of supposedly smart people (think of some professors you've had) that can't drive a car to save their life. And I don't think any of us are going to nominate Dale Earnhardt Jr for a Nobel Prize, but I don't question his driving skills.

Stop being so damn elitist.

Re:That may be so...

[ziggyboy]

You don't really see airples that run out of fuel fall off the sky, do you? I suppose it would just require more rigorous training/licensing than driving.

Re:That may be so...

[Ckwop]

Can't you stall? What about extreme high angle of attack situations? I've never been on these and I don't know the physics of it (I'm quite familiar with classic aircraft design and calculations).

If you can stall them it's very difficult to do and easily recoverable due to the autorotation.

If they are so great, why no medium scale implementation exists? The only ones I saw were the small, lightweight implementations.

Fixed wing aircraft are most cost effective for moving loads (be it people or cargo). Simon.

Re:That may be so...

[M1FCJ]

That's a good point. Is it more efficient than a helicopter I wonder. In most cases STOL is good enough. Let's do some googling on this...

Re:That may be so...

[Ed_Moyse]

Moderators this is *NOT* a +5 interesting since amost ALL of the points raised by this idiot are answered on the Moller international website

Now I'm not saying that they've got everything sorted, but at least read the proposals before spouting off!

For example, there are planned to be two paracutes on these things (so they won't "fall out of the sky when they run out of fuel"). Also you will not need a full pilots licence (so it should be cheaper), and frankly a well-trained "cletus type" is much less likely to crash than some arrogant who thinks that he's too smart to need teaching, and who probably doesn't read manuals (or websites ;-)

Re:That may be so...

[GooberToo]

Nope! Gyrocopters are death traps and are not for the average civilian. When they first become popular, there were more objects falling from the sky than ducks during duck season.

The problem with them is that they stall rather easily and do not tolorate winds very well at all. A crosswind can flip one and a tail wind can stall you, causing you to fall from the air without enough lift to autorotate. Furthermore, if you fly directly into a headwind with enough speed, again, you will lose lift on the leading rotor, causing a rotor stall, causing your to flip and/or fall from the air. At low altitudes, this is a death sentence. You can also raise your angle of attack too much and stall. Again, bad news. Also, since the rotor head is a fixed angle, causing the rotors to travel parallel to the seat, it makes for a rough ride. This means, many people get motion sickness riding in these things

Over the years, various companies have been working to address these MANY problems. Some claim to be successful, just the same, they are no longer the cheap vehicle there were before. There are some modern gyrocopters which have pivoting rotor heads, power-assist rotors, variable pitch rotors, depleated uranium in the rotor tips, etc, etc, etc...al of which hope to address the various short comings of gyrocopters. Some even have ramjets on the rotor tips allow for STOL capabilities. Just the same, these are just as out of reach, price wise (and still in development last I heard), as the air car.

Re:That may be so...

[TheRaven64]

You can fly at 326mph to your destination and get better gas mileage.

It has better gas mileage than an SUV on the ground. Expect that to drop off very quickly once you are in the air...

Re:That may be so...

[The Evil Couch]

which makes it self-regulating against putting idiots in the air. :D

Re:That may be so...

[anshil]

Hmmm, What is a gyrocopter?

Re:That may be so...

[Anonymous Coward]

Would you let a cletus like character behind the wheel of one of these things?

What are you, a fascist? Or is it bigotry, exactly, which leads you to make such flip denigration?

Re:That may be so...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm, What is google?

Re:That may be so...

[Anonymous Coward]

He probably meant an autogyro.

Re:That may be so...

[Rolo Tomasi]

Some even have ramjets on the rotor tips

That's an old one. The Hiller Hornet first flew in 1950.

Anyway, seems to me that the problems you described could be alleviated by having a standard collective/cyclic control for the rotor. But if you go this far, you could probably just as well make it a "proper" helicopter.

Which is what these guys are doing. A twin-engine, coaxial rotor personal helicopter. IMHO more likely to become reality than that Skycar.

Re:That may be so...

[dildatron]

Did you know that "cletus like" characters are often better at driving than geeks like you? These are people that drive tractors, tractor trailers, dump trucks, etc. And can probably fix a whole lot more than you when things go wrong. Suck of this geek supremicist bullshit. You are not better than everyone at everything. You are better at a small subset of things.

Re:That may be so...

[dildatron]

I pity you. It takes me 9 minutes to get to work through traffic. Luckily I live 3 miles away from the office.

Re:That may be so...

[Catbeller]

Um, nope. Better mileag (theoretically) in cruising flight than an SUV on the ground, per mile.

To be fair, that's not factoring the fuel necessary to get to cruising mode if you take off in VTOL mode. That'll eat up some crude.

Re:That may be so...

[HuckleCom]

Not to mention maintenance! Holy cow what a nightmere. Albeit the MPG might be crappy like an SUV you're not constricted to the winding roads ;) Because in that world a straight line is all you need!

Re:That may be so...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not cycle? I do and I live further from work. Good for the environment, reduces traffic congestion, and one day it might work off my spare tyre. (Not holding my breath on the last one).

Re:That may be so...

[hattig]

> And, btw, intelligence is absolutely no indicator of someone's ability
> to pilot or steer or drive a machine.

Actually it is.

However driving ability isn't proportional to intelligence. It is inversely proportional. Tests have shown that the more stupid a person is, the quicker they learn and better a driver they are. They can probably concentrate on the road or something because they don't have other thoughts going through their head.

Re:That may be so...

[dildatron]

Actually interesting that you bring this up. I just brought a cycle home yesterday (a bike-e) and am starting to ride on it. Not so much to save fuel, I just find that it helps me drop a few lbs, and i have more energy. and it doesn't take considerably longer than a car.

Re:That may be so...

[phrasebook]

. And I don't think any of us are going to nominate Dale Earnhardt Jr for a Nobel Prize, but I don't question his driving skills.

I do. Left, left, left, left, left, left, left, left, left, left, left, left, left, left, left, left... I think he'd have a very hard time indeed in a flying car.

Re:That may be so...

[GooberToo]

That's exactly right. Which, in turn, begins to make a gyrocopter into a much more complex airframe. One of the big advatnages of the gryocopter is that it's so simple. Adding more complex parts to it requires more complex skills to comtrol. It also requires more money to purchase and maintain. Thusly, the associated complexity goes way. Which mean, in the end, you're much close to a working copter. As you rightly pointed out, you're suddenly close enough to be a copter that you may as well turn it into a copter.

Re:That may be so...

[Peyna]

You mean when you are in the air and there is less friction to slow you down? It would seem to me it would get much better mileage in the air.

Re:That may be so...

[GooberToo]

I wish mods would bother to read the thread before they moderate. There is some very bad information being present here. Gyrocopters are not safe. Period. Anyone that says otherwise is an idiot. Someone was kind enough to even offer a link in this thread supporting the dangers of these things. Everything I stated about gyrocopters is 100% factual. Please, mod correctly. Mods are pushing down correct and accurate information in exchange for a clueless troll that doesn't have the foggiest idea what he's talking about. The statistics speak for themselves! Gyrocopters are one of the most dangerous aviation vehicles available. Period! They are not safe and DO STALL! Furthermore, they require a fair amount of forward momentum to safely autorotate. Speed is easy to bleed of in these things. Which means, a safe autorotation, even in the best of situations, is not always possible. Furthermore, rotor stalls are a problem that even helicopters have to deal with.

Simple fact is, gyrocopters are f-n death traps and anyone that says otherwise is either an idiot or a fool. Everything I stated is 100% fact and supported by both physics and their associated accident statistics!

Re:That may be so...

[GooberToo]

Because they are friggen death traps and the moderators are buying into his misinformation! Everything he stated is false.

Gyrocopters are dangerous. Very dangerous! And yes, they nto only stall, but FALL OUT OF THE FRIGGEN AIR! Autorotation is not always an option in a gyrocopter. This is exactly why some have looked into using things like depleated uranium in the rotor tips so that they can maintain enough energy in the rotors to widen the window where they can safely autorotate.

Simple fact is, gyrocopters are very dangerous and the dumb mods which are listening to this fool is doing a GREAT diservice to the readers and potential users of these crafts. They was wicked dangerous!

Re:That may be so...

[GooberToo]

Yes, you can stall. You can often recover. The problem with these death traps is when you fly any wind. Wind is what makes these things so dangerous. Fly in 0 wind and blue skies, it's probably fairly safe and fun. Fly when there is wind and you're playing the odds, which are NOT in your favor. Check the statistics!

Wind kills idiots that believe these things are safe. Rotor stalls are fairly easy to create in these things. Stall a rotor and you tumble or flat out fall from the sky. With a stalled rotor, you CAN NOT FRIGGEN AUTOROTATE. Anyone that says otherwise is an absoluete moron!!!!

Re:That may be so...

[GooberToo]

Mods! Pull your heads out of your tail pipes!! This is not a troll! This is fact!

Bother to think about the FACTS that I offered. What happens when a wing stalls on a plane? What happens when a rotor stalls on a helicopter? What happens when the rotor stalls on a gyrocopter? I Can promise you, if you stall a rotor, close to the ground, YOU CAN NOT AUTOROTATE. That a simple fact of phsyics.

Please mods, do the right thing here. Use your head! Mod based on facts rather than the misinformed facts offered by the fool that insists these things are safe. They are not safe and the statistics of these things prove it.

MODS! PLEASE DO YOU JOB PROPERLY! GYROCOPTERS ARE DANGEROUS!!!

Re:That may be so...

[GooberToo]

Except that helicopters can fly well, both against and with the wind. Gyrocopters can not. If a gyrocopter flies into too much wind, it can cause a rotor stall; but requires fairly high winds which would still be flyable by planes and helicopters. If you fly with a tail wind, you can EASILY lose lift AND forward momentum and fall from the air with a rotor stall.

Cross winds are also very dangerous for these things. Flipping or inverting a gryocopter is hardly unhead of. These things are dangerous and the statistics support this. As do the basic physics involved.

Re:That may be so...

[Technician]

I'm more interested in the economy they get while queued up in the landing pattern. You think the freeway is bad with 50 on and off ramps, try an arial traffic jam with only 3 or 4 off ramps (landing strips in the destination area) where the traffic can't slow down or stop.

They won't be too popular simply because of the problem of not being able to park close to you place of employment. You get much closer to the door in your SUV.

Re:That may be so...

[jafiwam]

Here's a link with pictures (German):

Gyrocopter

If you've ever seen the "Road Warrior" with Mel Gibson, that thing the sidekick guy flies around is a Gyrocopter.

Basically, a free-spin rotor at top set at an angle and a small rotor to push in back. Add a few control surfaces and you can fly by moving forward and counting on drag to spin the top rotor.

Re:That may be so...

[jafiwam]

With a real link this time.

Re:That may be so...

[Anonymous Coward]

But the cost of the flying car would be significantly more than an SUV.

More importantly, the insurance costs would be through the roof. What about if the car is flying and runs out of gas and crashes into a skyscraper? etc..

Re:That may be so...

[TXG1112]

Bad driving has little or nothing to do with reflexes or skill. It is arrogance or self-importance that causes the most frustration for ordinary drivers.

I don't care if you can apex the off-ramp at 70 mph, when you cut me off because I'm only doing 15 mph over the limit and not 20. It's the people who change lanes erratically and don't use signals that are dangerous. I've seen people drive around me at a traffic light (over the center line) so they could make an illegal right on red. I see people who treat red lights as stop signs. I've had people scream at me for going through my green light, because they couldn't get through on the red. This is the crap that really aggravates me.

If you're wondering, I live in northern New Jersey. This behavior says nothing about their skill at handling an automobile, and everything about their personality.

Re:That may be so...

[GooberToo]

Would some thoughtful mods care to please correct the moding that has gone on here in this thread? Please review my profile. I never troll. Period. In the mean time, I've been hammered hard by moderators for telling the truth and offering facts about gyrocopters. Please, don't mod this post up, rather, please correct the modds which others have done. As is, some very bad and dangerous information is being pushed forward. Basically, most everything in this thread which was modded down is correct and everything that was modded up is false.

MODS, PLEASE DO YOUR JOB AND MOD DOWN THE BAD STUFF AND MOD UP THE CORRECT/ACCURATE INFORMATION. MODS, PLEASE READ THIS THREAD WITH -1 SCOPE SO THAT YOU CAN SEE ALL OF THE GOOD AND VALID INFORMATION WHICH HAS INCORRECTLY BEEN HAMMERED BY OTHER CARELESS MODS. Once you read the entire thread, it's fairly easy to see that everything I've stated has been supported by facts offered by my self or others kind enough to add real value to the thread.

THANK YOU.

Re:That may be so...

[UniverseIsADoughnut]

Well, yes there are these "roads" in the sky. But remember that people on the ground often can be seen cutting across parking lots, through feilds and so forth, basicly leaving the road. People are bound to go off these "roads" and go about their will. On the ground they are more limited since cars can't get anywheres on the ground without either not being able to go anywheres or hitting a house.

Re:That may be so...

[hattig]

Ah, I live in the UK, where we actually have a pretty tough driving test (and hence lots of proper driving lessons), unlike what I hear about many places in the states. Not that that means people are good drivers in the end, a lot of people might just be "in the zone" for their driving test despite being rather poor at driving. Then again, not obeying traffic signs / signals is a rare occurrence over here, in my experience. Then again, we now have 4 tests to get a driving license: driving, theory, reactions and maintainence.

Maybe it is just a confidence thing. Geeks lack confidence, hence take longer to learn because they take less 'risks' than someone who has confidence.

Re:That may be so...

[Anonymous Coward]

Because they are friggen death traps and the moderators are buying into his misinformation! Everything he stated is false.


Eh, just shut up. Nobody is buying your trolling. Maybe instead of screaming "check the statistics" over and over, you should post a URL to said statistics. In fact, you'd get bonus points if these "statistics" weren't on a wiki site you could have written yourself.

Re:That may be so...

[SpookyFish]

IANAP (pilot), but the passion in your posts piqued my interest..

Wouldn't it seem, that the shortcomings would be fairly easy worked around -- probably still keeping the package cheaper than about any other flying transportation option, saftey being considered.

A computer that keeps pilots' control motions within safe ranges, few gyros for input, and a small battery but high torque electric motor to give the roters a boost for emergency recovery / landing when a stall is detected?
(not to mention the uranium-tipped blads you mentioned elsewhere)

Re:That may be so...

[GooberToo]

I personally think that with some research, they can be made much safer. Just the same, they still have serious issues with wind. AFAIC, tilt rotor heads and variable pitch rotors will allow for wind corrections. In fact, somewhere, I even read that people were looking into such thing. The problem is, we're no longer talking about a lowend $10,000 craft or a nice one fo $20,000. Once you start into the $30,000 or more range, you can get a very safe and reliable older airframe (152, 172, various 140-180 pipers, etc), which will have a more useful load and probably a couple of more knots for boasting purposes. For about $18,000 - $35,000, you can get a fairly nice plane and chances are very high that it will have a proven safe track record AND be more more useful in less than ideal weather.

So, if you're going to spend the money, which are you going to purchase? For most that are serious about flying, I would think the choice is obvious. Having said all that, I would love to see a reliable ans safe gyrocopter hit the market which has all of the safety features rolled into one. I suppose it's possible that patent and design-dollar issues are preventing this from happening anytime soon. Oh well.

At any rate, the current state of gyrocopters are far from the current list of crediable known saftey improvements which are currently possible. Toss in the fact that pilots tend to be far less trained than real pilots, and they really are a death trap.

Do some searching on yahoo and google, and you'll find that there are many small companies trying various items here and there to help improve the safety record of these things. I'm not sure why we're not seeing more R&D money being pumped into them.

FYI, my father is a pilot since before I was born and I have recently starting studying for my written. I'm hoping to have my certificate within a year.

Cheers!

Re:That may be so...

[Glonoinha]

Doesn't take a rocket scientist to find the Space Shuttle 'interesting'. There is a difference between interesting and informative.

Watch the interview of Aria Giovanni. She isn't informative, but she is very interesting.

Re:That may be so...

[Lord_Dweomer]

" So you have to pay more to get the thing initially. Boo hoo."

I suppose you think insurance and repairs are going to be negligible costs for one of these?

Re:That may be so...

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a pilot, and every aircraft has gotchas that can kill you. The sky is a beautiful place and the benefits surely outweigh the risks... But, that doesn't make it a natural environment for humans.

Even airlines can stall, and I'm pretty sure that a spin in one would ruin your day. If you just pull back on the yoke and close your eyes hoping not to hit the ground, you'll hit it eventually. Same with helicopters, gyrocopters, gliders, paragliders, hang-gliders, and every other kind of aircraft that I can think of.

Flying is a calculated risk, and everyone who flies is obligated by their will-to-live to know how their aircraft handles -- and, preferably, to learn this from someone who already knows rather from dumb luck.

Re:That may be so...

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't even get people to let me into the next lane when I have my signal on... I sure don't want them to have jet cars. Besides, with the US Homeland Security being paranoid about airplanes crashing into buildings, there's no way they're going to be approve for use by just anyone.

Re:That may be so...

[AKnightCowboy]

Cross winds are also very dangerous for these things. Flipping or inverting a gryocopter is hardly unhead of. These things are dangerous and the statistics support this. As do the basic physics involved.

Seems like it'd make more sense for people to just learn to fly real helicopters. Why try to make a car fly when we already have vehicles that travel just fine through the air and hover in place? Granted, they're probably not easy to fly, but if you can learn to drive a car you should be able to learn how to fly. I can't imagine it's THAT difficult. People were flying before there was such a thing as flying lessons and pilot's licenses.

Re:That may be so...

[spiritgreywolf]

Goob, are you a complete retard or just write like one? Why not go study the subject a little before you comment upon it. Go read up about Gyrocopters, look at the Popular Rotorcraft Association site, (www.pra.org) for starters and Google some links about Gyrocopters in general.

BTW, a Gyrocopter is _already_ in a state of autorotation - the rotor on a gyro ISN'T powered like a helicopter. It bears more resemblance to a wing in an airplane than a helicopter per-se.

Rotor stalls? On a GYRO?! Oh for chrissakes, these things are easier to land "power-off" than any powered rotor helicopter. How would one stall? The most dangerous situations in a gryo are called "bunt-over" and PIO (Pilot Induced Ocillation) from pushing forward too hard and/or fighting the controls.

You can actually fly Autogyro's in wind that would make light-planes like Cessna's, Piper's, etc., make you toss your cookies and slap you into the pavement. Wind doesn't kill idiots that believe these things are safe, the blatent stupidity of people in general is what kills. Your comment on wind leads me to believe that you're talking more about "Powered Parachutes" than you are about Gyrocopters.

Re:That may be so...

[jesterzog]

You can fly at 326mph to your destination and get better gas mileage.

Of course, driving/flying everywhere at 524 km/h (please excuse my metric) isn't necessarily a good idea. Especially if everyone has them.

Re:That may be so...

[CatKnight]

Have you ever seen how the average player flies a Huey in Battlefield:Vietnam? If I am afraid to be a passenger on a virtual chopper in a computer game, what makes you think I would want to be a passenger in a real flying car? O_o

Re:That may be so...

[swatoa]

I imagine those tests excluded retarded people.

I know plenty of intelligent folk who are good drivers. The really smart nerds who can't do so much as throw or catch a baseball deserve electrocution!!!!!!!!!!

Re:That may be so...

[tenor]

When i was an stats undergrad at the University of Illinois I was working with a Flight School Instructor who was trying to come up with a statistical model to predict who would make good pilots (I have no idea what he thought a good pilot is anymore). We modeled over 125 variables, from high school GPA, ACT, SAT and other intelligence indicators, to video game skills, 0-roll handling and the color of their eyes.

Not one good predictor among them. It turns out that good pilots are born that way.

Re:That may be so...

[BillyBlaze]

I don't think computer control is practical in the short term. It's very difficult from a software standpoint (we can't even make street-legal computerized non-flying cars). And from a liability standpoint, a computer control system is much harder to sell. If a human-controlled machine crashes, it was probably the human's fault. If a computer-controlled machine crashes, the company that made it is sure to be the one sued.

Re:That may be so...

[dustmite]

Tests have shown that the more stupid a person is, the quicker they learn and better a driver they are

References please? I'm somehow not convinced.

Re:That may be so...

[Rich0]

That depends - are you talking rolling friction (tires-road) or aerodynamic friction? If the latter, that is purely a function of speed. At 300 mph, you need to produce a LOT more thrust to overcome wind resistance. Why do you think those engines need to produce 770 hp?

Re:That may be so...

[phliar]

Except that helicopters can fly well, both against and with the wind. Gyrocopters can not. If a gyrocopter flies into too much wind, it can cause a rotor stall; but requires fairly high winds which would still be flyable by planes and helicopters. If you fly with a tail wind, you can EASILY lose lift AND forward momentum and fall from the air with a rotor stall.

Ignorance is not a vice; we all have to learn some time. But which kind of idiot calls this "informative"? (Four of them!)

When an aircraft is airborne -- whether fixed-wing or rotary -- it knows nothing about the wind. Just like a ship moving on the ocean knows nothing about any ocean currents it may be in. The only thing an aircraft can sense is a change in wind velocity. A steady wind is just an inertial frame as good as any other.

Or do you think that if you're in the back seat of a bus that's moving faster than you can throw a ball, you can't hit that clown in the front seat?

Re:That may be so...

[phliar]

Gyrocopters are dangerous. Very dangerous! And yes, they nto only stall, but FALL OUT OF THE FRIGGEN AIR!

Incidentally, I am a pilot. Any pilot flying has stalled an airplane many hundreds of times. Any rotary-wing pilot has autorotated many hundreds of times. Many pilots have spun airplanes. Many of us actually spin them for fun! We even turn the engine off (well, retard the throttle to simulate engine off) in flight, many many times. And you know what? We don't just "FALL OUT OF THE FRIGGEN AIR!" Sure, if you stall -- or let your rotor speed decay -- close to the ground and you'll be in pain. That's why we have instructors.

Why don't you go down to your local small airport and take an intro flight? Fixed wing or rotary, your choice. You can see for yourself how it all works.

Re:That may be so...

[phliar]

Gyrocopters are one of the most dangerous aviation vehicles available.

Besides being complete nonsense, this is also logically bogus. Something has to be "the most dangerous" -- so what?

They are not safe and DO STALL!

It's completely obvious you have absolutely no knowledge in these matters. You do not automatically die if your aircraft stalls, contrary to what Hollywood might try to tell you. Your messages boil down to nothing more than "YOU WILL FRIGGEN DIE!!!!!!!! if you stop breathing."

Re:That may be so...

[tekunokurato]

dude, calm down. it's entirely possible that he meant slack-jawed people, and not just anyone from the country or who's "blue-collar."

Re:That may be so...

[GooberToo]

You might bother to read what the engineers have to say on the subject. If they are so wonderful, how come they have one of the highest fatal crash rates of any aviation vehicle. Doh! Hate it when facts shatter your fantasy.

Re:That may be so...

[GooberToo]

You may want to learn what you are actually talking about before you post.

There is a difference between IAS, TAS and ground speed. Learn the difference. Once you know that, then, learn what keep the friggen thing in the air. DOh! What a concept!

Re:That may be so...

[GooberToo]

You are a moron.

Feel free to stop breathing.

Re:That may be so...

[GooberToo]

Ah. First of all, there is a huge difference between rotary and fixed hing craft. You might want to learn more about the physics that keeps gyrocopters in the air before you reply. Why do helicopters have a maximum forward airspeed? That's the same resason that causes gyrocopters to have rotor stall with tail winds.

Doh.

And btw, I am currently studying for my license and have been around planes all my life. My father and uncle are both pilots. I grew up in planes. I have made plenty of r/c planes. I understand how and why they fly. Being a pilot, in no way, ensures you understand anything other than basic physics as it relates to lift, drag, thrust ad gravity. Period. Believe it or not, I think knowledge learned from the engineers that work on gyrocopters trumps your "I'm a pilot" statement.

Re:That may be so...

[VxSote]

You really should take your own advice, you who obviously has no knowledge of basic aerodynamics. An aircraft in an air mass moving relative to the ground (i.e. wind) behaves exactly the same (with respect to the air mass) as an aircraft in a non-moving air mass. (Yes, that is a restatement of a previous post.)

BTW, I am an aerospace engineer, I DO know the difference, and I leared long ago what keeps things in the air.

Re:That may be so...

[GooberToo]

Please re-read what I stated. This is basic stuff and somehow you've completely missed the boat. Airflow on an airfoil is what creates lift. If you have a plane moving foward at 20kts and and headwind at 20kts, the airflow creates lift with an effective 40kts of airflow. Period. If you have a tailwind of 20kts, the effective air flow is 0kts. That creates zero lift. Period. That means no friggen lift. Furthermore, for a gyrocopter, energy in the rotor (RPM) is relative to the airflow moving over it from the front of the craft. Gyrocopters can not fly unless there is minimum airflow AND RPM in the rotor. A tailwind not only reudces the effective lift of the airfoil, but it also reduces the RPM of the rotor, further reducing its lift. The result is that it becomes fairly easy to exceed the critical angle of attack causing one side of the rotor to stall. I've stated nothing which is contrary to these basic facts. And, this is exactly what happens. These thinks are known to go inverted when this happens, making recovery very problematic and, in fact, impossible at low altititudes. Beyond this, this is basic 101 gyrocopter aerospace engineering stuff. Come on already. This is exactly why planes should take off and land into the wind. Landing downwind requires a higher IAS to prevent prematurely stalling. I'm sorry, but that's fact. If you disagree with anything I've stated here, it's proof you have no idea what you are talking about.

Furthermore, I've even seen a video of one of these things falling from the friggen air at about 20 feet. The guy did not maintain enough energy in his rotors, pulled back, stalling the craft. If fell like a rock from about 20 feet. The rotors broke over the guy's head and it destroyed the airframe. I don't recall if the pilot was seriously injured. There goes the "always autorotates" lie.

Simple fact is, I've seen it on video and and read enough information on these things by engineers that actually work on them to understand what's going on. If they worked like so many people here seem to think they do, the accident rate would be far, far, far, far, far lower than it is. Toss in the fact that most (all??) of the engines on these things are not FAA approved and low pilot time and bad myths about energy retension, they are a death trap waiting to happen.

My father, being a pilot, was going to get one of these as a young man. One of his friends died in one of these things. Another was injured. Why? Because one stalled without enough energy in the rotors, causing a rotor stall and fell out of the air at low altitude. The other one had an engine failure with a tail wind and stalled. He autorotated, but was not able to maintain enough forward energy to maintain enough lift and energy in the rotors. He was, again, injured. My father wisely decided to pass on his gyrocopter.

As I originally stated and is well supported by not only factual accounts of three (of many) accidents, but the physics that make these things fly, these make for very poor general purpose aviation vehicles which have a very high fatality rate.

I'm sorry, but I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about.

All of the reasons that I've listed are specific areas of development that real eningeers are working to improve because, as is, they pose significant risks to pilots.

Re:That may be so...

[gfxguy]

I agree with more testing, but "Worlds Worst Drivers", on Fox (so it must be true), shows a LOT of UK drivers doing some really stupid things.

I agree with the other poster, I don't think driving ability is so much based on "intelligence" as much as it is based on common sense.

Re:That may be so...

[VxSote]

If you have a plane moving foward at 20kts and a headwind at 20kts, the airflow creates lift with an effective 40kts of airflow.

If you have a tailwind of 20kts, the effective air flow is 0kts. That creates zero lift.

Yes, if the plane and the airmass are moving as you first described, the airspeed will be 40kts. If you have an airplane moving along at the same speed as the airmass it is in (as you also described), the airspeed will be zero.

The problem is that getting your airspeed to zero is not a function of the wind whatsoever. You can fly an aircraft to an excessively low airspeed with or without wind.

If your hypothetical aircraft is flying along as you first described and you execute a normal 180 turn, you will then be flying along with ... 40kts of airspeed, not zero. Your headwind will now be a tailwind , and you will have 60kts of groundspeed.

Landing downwind requires a higher IAS to prevent prematurely stalling. I'm sorry, but that's fact.

Actually, that statement is completely untrue. If you land with a tailwind, you will have the same airspeed as you would with a headwind or no wind. You will, however, have a higher groundspeed. This is undesireable because it will increase your stopping distance, wear excessively on the brakes, etc. The stall speed of an aircraft is determined by the weight of the aircraft and the angle of attack that results in the maximum lift. Stalling has nothing at all to do with groundspeed. Autorotation of a rotorcraft is a bit more complicated than just talking about forward airspeed, but it also has nothing to do with the wind or groundspeed.

As far as the physics of flight are concerned, the takeoff and landing phases are are the only phases of flight where speed relative to the ground is important, and windspeed then becomes important as well. The problem here is that you have attempted to relate all phases of flight as motion with respect to the ground.

What you need to understand is that a failure to maintain forward airspeed in flight has nothing at all to do with a tailwind or a headwind. Failure to maintain sufficient energy in the rotor of a rotary wing aircraft also has nothing at all to do with a tailwind or a headwind.

If you would like to provide actual evidence of crashes to support your arguments, please cite the appropriate NTSB report (www.ntsb.gov). I guarantee that you will not find one where the probable cause is listed as "flew into a tailwind and fell out of the sky".

Nothing in my post is intended to address windshear or microbursts, which fall outside the scope of flying in a steady air mass.

Eco-friendly???

[Kwelstr]

"it emits a rather noisy 65 dba at 500 feet. Interestingly, with a fuel consumption of 20 miles to the gallon on the road, it's rather more economical than a Sports Utility Vehicle (SUV) and looks positively eco-friendly compared to a Hummer."

How about NOISE POLLUTION???? 65 dba at 500 feet. Yeah that's eco friendly in my book!!!

Re:Eco-friendly???

[McDutchie]

Not to mention the industrial, chemical and biological pollution caused by spontaneous post-crash combustion of scores of these containers packaging freshly deceased would-be amateur pilots. I'm not sure the ecological effects of dumping and incinerating tons of such canned meat product are well known, especially if the meat is human and the dumping is done over inhabitated areas.

Re:Eco-friendly???

[Corfiot]

Fly higher :)

hehehe

Poor birds tho. Then again, this seems like a recent development. How noisy and inefficient (and dangerous) were early cars?

If we all had one of those we'd not have to get stuck in traffic for an hour a day :)

--G

Re:Eco-friendly???

[gl4ss]

...and not to mention the production pollution. though suv's might be just as bad in that sense.

however, are they still able to fly these things? just saying because I saw an article about these like 10 years ago already and it seems like a dnf project for now as well....

Re:Eco-friendly???

[Tango42]

If there are enough of these in the sky then congestion will be just as bad. And worse, if you're in stationary traffic at 500 feet, you won't be for long...

Re:Eco-friendly???

[Anonymous Coward]

65 dB is not very loud ( though I seriously doubt the Moller will be this quiet anytime soon ).

A helicopter is louder than this, and so is even a high-bypass
fanjet engine.

Back to school, "kwelstr"...

Re:Eco-friendly???

[Anonymous Coward]

Noise limit criteria on motorcycles are usually around 80 dB(A) (Depending on country) at 8 meters distance. This thing is rather quiet in comparison.

As a thumb rule noise decreases with 6 dB with a doubling of distance so noise should not be a big problem.

Re:Eco-friendly???

[Jott42]

Rather quiet? According to your numbers: -6dB per doubling of distance.
500 ft = 152m
8*2*2*2*2=128m
four doubling of distance equals 4*6=24dB

The flying car will give approximatly 89 dBA at 8m! And the sound will travel longer, as it is up in the air and is less attenuated by building etc. (Hot air ballons are heard for quite a distance!)

Re:oh yeah

[Vlad_the_Inhaler]

RTFA, although there is not much detail there.

I love high gas prices

[Anonymous Coward]

and I hope they go higher. $5 a gallon.

You've had 2 kids you couldn't really afford, a house in suburbia you can't afford, and now you've bought a Chrysler LeBehemoth that gets .8 MPG.

You deserve it.

Re:I love high gas prices

[Anonymous Coward]

A little jealous are we? Too bad most of those people can afford all that stuff and aren't flinching at the high gas prices. It is the average joe that really gets killed.

And for the non-americans in here

[Mr. Marabou Man]

20 (miles / US gallon) = 8.50287411 kilometers per liter

Re:And for the non-americans in here

[ahillen]

Or like we say over here:

11.7607292 liters / (100 kilometer) :)

(or 1.17607292 × 10-07 m2? Whatever... ;) )

Re:And for the non-americans in here

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is 11.8l/100km in a unit which people actually use. :-)

Re:And for the non-americans in here

[Daath]

Man that's really insane, the cars I'm considering goes 20-25 kilometers per liter. That's 47-58 miles per gallon!
It's not just gas prices that is a factor here, cars pollute, so the less they pollute, the better.
The noise pollution of this thing is significant too. No, this is cool but it needs to get better. Way better.

Re:And for the non-americans in here

[Kopretinka]

It would have been more helpful if the figure was in liters per 100km, the usual here in my country:

20 miles per US gallon = 11.8 l/100km

Re:And for the non-americans in here

[sydb]

Americans don't worry about things like pollution, that's why there gas is is practically untaxed (therefore cost is not an issue) and their engines are so large.

Re:And for the non-americans in here

[Kopretinka]

Sorry about the self-reply, just have to add that the simple formula is: x mpg = 235/x l/100km, and of course x l/100km = 235/x mpg.

Re:And for the non-americans in here

[Anonymous Coward]

It would also be nice to have "litre" spelled correctly instead of in American.

Re:And for the non-americans in here

[Hektor_Troy]

Just to nitpick, we don't use 8 significant digits when using km/l. 1 is more than enough. 8.5 km/l. Anything more is ridiculous, as the number will fluctuate anyway, and is probably rounded from something.

Here on Slashdot we often see posts like

"that's 8.50287411 km/l" followed by "see, this is why we don't want metric - it's too dificult to remember compared to 20 miles/gallon".

Of course we could do it the other way around as well. 8½ km/l 19.993239674108264552443197350831 miles/gallon. This is of course why we metric people hate imperial - it's too difficult to remember compared to 8½ km/l.

Re:And for the non-americans in here

[Anonymous Coward]

> 20 (miles / US gallon) = 8.50287411 kilometers per liter

Holy crap, are they really making new cars with such terrible millage?

Re:And for the non-americans in here

[Naffer]

If by untaxed you mean 25% taxed... then you're right. 50 cents on every gallon is tax.

Re:And for the non-americans in here

[sydb]

That's right, in the UK we are currently paying around 72% tax, and it was 85% in 1998.

Re:And for the non-americans in here

[Anonymous Coward]

correction 8.5 has 2 significant digits
also, when do you see 8.5 km/L???
it's usually in the form ## L/100km
note: 8.5 km/L = ~ 11.8 L/100km (which isn't really that great)
although I'd prefer km/L
can anyone tell us why they standardized on L/100 km?

Re:And for the non-americans in here

[Anonymous Coward]

If by untaxed you mean 25% taxed... then you're right. 50 cents on every gallon is tax.

He said, practically untaxed. Considering the unpaid costs caused by burning gas, it should be a lot higher. The free market tends to abuse things that appear to be free, but really aren't.

Re:And for the non-americans in here

[carlislematthew]

Actually, wouldn't it be 19 and 35/36ths of gallon? That's *much* easier to remember... EVERYTHING MUST BE DIVISIBLE BY 6!!!!!!! Why? Because people used to have 5 fingers and 1 thumb on each hand. When mother nature dropped the useless "tiny finger" (even smaller than the "little finger"), people went to base 10. Base 5 was deemed to be too annoying for some reason.

This evolution happened earlier in Europe than in the US, hence the conversion to metric over there first. It'll happen over here too, once all those old, white, 6 fingered politicians finally die off.

Re:And for the non-americans in here

[dildatron]

Well all I can say is that it sucks to be you and live under such heavy taxation. And where I have been in the UK, it is dirtier than the US. Of course, the UK is much more dense, but still. Gas wants to be close to free.

Re:And for the non-americans in here

[Anonymous Coward]

The overall percentage tax burden on people in the USA and UK is pretty much the same - just more on some things, less on others.

Re:And for the non-americans in here

[Kopretinka]

Weeeelll, it's one thing to standardize on measurements units, but standardization of a language is quite a different beast. Measurement units don't evolve, you see. 8-)

Personally, I prefer liter to litre because the latter looks so French. 8-)

Re:And for the non-americans in here

[arkane1234]

Man that's really insane, the cars I'm considering goes 20-25 kilometers per liter. That's 47-58 miles per gallon!

Have fun when you need to carry a weeks worth of stuff with you somewhere ;)

That'd be a great as a podmobile to get back and forth to work, though.

Re:And for the non-americans in here

[arkane1234]

Oh, you're just jealous :)

Taxes are not meant to be extremely high. When they are, that means the respective government is having issues.

Considering no government that I know of does anything about the environment in regards to fuel emissions (I don't see planes flying with giant soot-scoopers or anything) then the taxes are unfounded. Additives to gasoline to make it better burning? Paid for at the pump. Research into better emissions-control in vehicles? Paid for when you buy the car. Remember, taxes are not meant to keep someone from using a certain commodity, even though oddly some governments think that works. Taxes are meant to fund projects for the people. That one point alot of people have forgotten.

It's alot like these silly cigarette taxes going around. Originally they were founded as "sin tax" by the Clinton administration. Now, they just keep being tacked onto, time after time. 10 years ago a pack of cigarettes cost approximately $1.20. The same pack now costs $3.75-$3.90. That brings the average price of a carton from ~$15 to ~$40.
The projects funded by these taxes? They it's funding for the state medical bills associated with smoking. However, anyone who uses the state medical could not afford the cost of smoking due to the high prices. (~$40 * 2 cartons = $80, average income for a person in that shape is approximately $500/month on disability) Factor in the other expenses of course.

Taxation is not a fix-all, and should never be used to rip money from individuals through a moral-dilemma method. If that's the case, in some peoples eyes the christian denomination should start paying out the nose. It's all in how you look at it.

Re:And for the non-americans in here

[arkane1234]

Nah, the Americans just realize that you don't say "Leetra", you say "leeter". So, they spell it accordingly. It's evolution in action to correct a language long skewed.

It's alot like towne, or colour, and all those other words.

Re:And for the non-americans in here

[Anonymous Coward]

> That'd be a great as a podmobile to get back and forth to work, though.

Not really. Even in my country, with that piss-like gasoline we can buy here, some cars claim about 20 Km/l.

I myself did 16 Km/l (almost 38 mpg) around 1982, on an excellent highway, at about 100 Km/h (over 62 mph) -- actually I was testing the marks claimed by the car maker.

Re:And for the non-americans in here

[Anonymous Coward]

> although I'd prefer km/L

Great. Come to my country and you'll be happy.

> can anyone tell us why they standardized on L/100 km?

Simple: they didn't... :-P

At least, not in Brazil. Since we're talking about fuel consumption, one should really use l/Km, but the numbers would be awkwardly small, so many countries instead use l/100Km.

But in Brazil we talk about a car consumption really referring to the car efficiency, expressed in Km/l, probably also because it leads to more human-readable numbers.

Re:And for the non-americans in here

[Anonymous Coward]

Tax on cigarettes is ok, they're bad for you and the people around you. If too many people still buy cigarettes, the tax is too low. Oh, and by the way I smoke ;)

As for gas, the more gas your car consumes (and the "dirtier" it runs), the more tax you should pay - And I don't mean 50 cents per whatever measure you use, as it is now, but a full dollar or a dollar and half. The more pollution, the more you pay. That'll teach the ignorant people out there to buy less polluting cars. If that doesn't do it, raise it further.

Re:And for the non-americans in here

[arkane1234]

Tax on cigarettes is ok, they're bad for you and the people around you. If too many people still buy cigarettes, the tax is too low. Oh, and by the way I smoke ;)

Now I see why we left England. LOL

As for gas, the more gas your car consumes (and the "dirtier" it runs), the more tax you should pay - And I don't mean 50 cents per whatever measure you use, as it is now, but a full dollar or a dollar and half. The more pollution, the more you pay. That'll teach the ignorant people out there to buy less polluting cars. If that doesn't do it, raise it further.

Since there are no comparable alternatives to automobiles (bikes are not alternatives, they are on par with a slow moped), and considering there are already laws about pollution control on vehicles, *and* annual checks to keep cars off of the road that are polluters, it sounds as if your trying to be a tyrant.

As a civic leader, part of the duty is to keep the economy from falling flat on it's face... not to help it along into a downward spiral that'd kill any chance of pulling out of a recession. Fuel is already $2.30/Gallon (~$0.61/liter) in my part of America, and only going up. It now takes me, in a very fuel efficient car, $20+ a week to go back and forth to work. Before, it was close to $10. That's over a 100-percent increase in price.
This has happened without additional taxes, unlike overseas. That's all America needs is yet another price increase in fuel... that'd really put a burden on goods & services being transferred across the country. Also, the taxes collected in America are used for the streets and other Department of Transportation uses. (recycled back into the very thing a car uses) The taxes are balanced, not too high, not too low. What your proposing is, to be blunt, self-serving ego-masturbation. Somehow you forget that even if you don't drive at all in your life, you are directly effected by the price of fuel through purchases you make in order to survive such as food. Even if you're willing to go through the higher taxation for "the greater good", I sure am not. I have a family to feed, and no alternative to avoid the "ignorance" tax.

Electric or Alternative fuel vehicles are what we need, with readily accessible access to said alternative fuel. Not people with whacky ideas about somehow "punishing" everyone else for their "ignorance". Enough of these hybrid cars, also.

Dawn of the age of the understicker...

[Black Parrot]

IF YOU CAN READ THIS
I'm about to land on you

Re:Dawn of the age of the understicker...

[MouseR]

"I can't brake for nobody"

Re:Dawn of the age of the understicker...

[Anonymous Coward]

"I break on impact" :(

Re:Dawn of the age of the understicker...

[torpor]

"My other car is a duck!"

Re:Dawn of the age of the understicker...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd rather be flying... oh wait!

Re:Dawn of the age of the understicker...

[Lord_Dweomer]

Landing Lights: Finally a legitimate use for those neon undercarriage lights I see on all the tuned imports.

Economic Impact

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty soon most in city travel will move towards public transportation and small aircraft will remove much of the cost of building highways and their economic cost. Really this whole thing makes a lot of sense to the government.

Re:Economic Impact

[Anonymous Coward]

What makes you think that people, especially people in America, are ever going to embrace public transportation?

If we want people to be responsible and start using public transportation, we're going to have to make it much more expensive to drive a car. A tax on gasoline that brings the price Americans pay into line with what the rest of the world pays ought to do it.

Re:Economic Impact

[Wells2k]

Remove the cost of building highways? Ummm...have you looked at what a good portion of the traffic is on the highways is these days?

Trucks.

Cargo shipping is one of the biggest reasons for the highways these days, and I really don't foresee the use of "small aircraft" as being a good replacement for the trucking industry at this time.

Re:Economic Impact

[dildatron]

Yeah tax the hell out of everything so no one does it. Great liberal thinking here. Did you ever stop and think that public transportation in America is much harder than it is in Europe or Japan? I mean, the state I live in in bigger than the UK. We have so much land to cover, that it is a much harder problem to solve. Same reason our cell phone technology lags behind the rest of the world.

Taxing gas sky high will do nothing except give the government more money to spend, and give the people less money. I mean, Christ, is 25% of your paycheck not enough for you? When I work for my money, I like to keep some of it.

Re:Economic Impact

[carlislematthew]

People have been making those kinds of statements about public transportation for decades.

Only when you remove the roads will you stop people using them. Go to London, Manhattan, Rome, or any other huge old city with a traffic problem. Sure, they have public transportation, but they didn't stop using their cars. Why? Because if everyone did, the roads would be empty and people would start using them again, until they got clogged again. Supply and demand.

Re:Economic Impact

[Anonymous Coward]

"Yeah tax the hell out of everything so no one does it. Great liberal thinking here. Did you ever stop and think that public transportation in America is much harder than it is in Europe or Japan? I mean, the state I live in in bigger than the UK. We have so much land to cover, that it is a much harder problem to solve. Same reason our cell phone technology lags behind the rest of the world."

Many cities in the USA are still relatively dense. For commuter travel to work in a relatively dense urban area than public transport can make sense, certainly more than single-occupancy SUVs and immensely clogged roads and ever increasing road building that simply encourages more driving to the point that the roads are just as clogged as ever they were.

With more people able to telecommute this seems
one way round the problem. People won't be able
to do without going to the office, but going to
the office three days a week rather than five
might ease congestion. On the other hand if you
are going to spend an hour on the road going
to and from work, you might (in theory) be able
to get some work done on public transport that
you can't do safely whilst driving, if the public
transport system is set up to aid this (which it
isn't at the moment).

Re:Economic Impact

[dildatron]

I was sure I would be modded down since slashdot leans so far to the left. Thanks for proving my point and censoring my post because you dont agree with it. Continue your taxation, please.

Re:Economic Impact

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, create flying trucks. For non-fragile items use JDAM technology to laser guide the delivery to its destination. For fragile items, use a parachute. Problem solved. Next...

However, more seriously, people are considering
the rebirth of the airship for large freight that is not time critical, but more as a rail alternative.

Re:Economic Impact

[Anonymous Coward]

A tax on gasoline is not the answer. People will simply continue to drive cars and demand higher salaries and higher prices for their goods and services. Higher gas prices create more inflation, that's all.

The problem with the States is one of government-type and social attitude. Government-type because public transportation usually needs heavy subsidy from the government, and most Americans refuse to distribute their tax dollars towards something they don't use right now. Since they drive cars, they don't want their taxes to go towards public transport.

Social attitude because the States is a consumer- and corporate-driven society. The more people drive individual cars, the more is consumed, the more profit is generated for various corporations. Add to this a healthy dose of marketing and no American ever thinks it's cool to use public transportation. After all, you never see Price Is Right giving away 1-year transit passes, do you?

Re:Economic Impact

[Merovign]

I think the "4 insightful" is almost funnier than post. I wonder what the religion centered around "public transportation" is?

Obviously a sect of Communitarianism, but what? BusDriverStrikeism? WaitingForTheBusism? ControlFreakism?

If you want to ride a bus, go ride a bus. Leave the rest of us alone, because You Just Don't Get It.

As to the guy with 25% tax, what, do you have eight kids or something? State & Fed takes closer to 40% from me. And what do I get? Roads, fire departments, and hundreds of public-fund academics trying to drive me off the former. Whee.

Re:Economic Impact

[jcr]

Trucking won't require eight-lane highways.

-jcr

Re:Economic Impact

[ImpTech]

Umm, no. Aside from all the bazillion regulatory issues that come up when 100 million people want to fly personal aircraft, flying cars like this are not practical for anyone. Try building one of these designed to haul stuff, even more than 1-2 passengers, and see how far you get before its absurd. The prototype, while really fast, appears to be loud as a train and have less utility than the tiniest Kia you can buy. And its DANGEROUS! Imagine the DUIs, or worse...

Re:Economic Impact

[Captain DaFt]

"Pretty soon most in city travel will move towards public transportation and small aircraft will remove much of the cost of building highways and their economic cost. Really this whole thing makes a lot of sense to the government."

Is it just, or was this quote lifted from a 1920's science magazine?

so what

[Anonymous Coward]

If I see one of these girly things when I am cruising for chicks in my Chevy Yukon, I will crush it like a bug under my 23" tires and kick sand in the face of the sad little dweeb driving it.

Re:so what

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Let's see what the girls prefer, shall we?

1. Guy in flying car, want a ride, ladies?

2. Guy in big beefy land-based car.

Ummmmmm...am I missing something?

Let's jump back 100 years.

"If I see one of those girly auto-mo-beeles when cruising for chicks in my horse-and-buggy, well, look out! [b]I am the studly one![/b] Ladies! Ladies? Ladies? Come back! Come back!"

Re:so what

[Anonymous Coward]

"If I see one of these girly things when I am cruising for chicks in my Chevy Yukon..."

Wow, I bet you do really well picking up chicks...

in a trailer park.

where this car fails miserably

[Anonymous Coward]

People think in two dimensions and flying requires three dimension thinking, plus who's gonna pay for all the air traffic system required to allow the common joe get from point a to b safely?.

Re:where this car fails miserably

[Lispy]

You are seriously right. I used to take flying lessons and when I was on my ride home from the airport I was really amazed how two dimensional driving is. It's actually kinda weird to lack a third dimension when you got used to it.

Re:where this car fails miserably

[M1FCJ]

Apparently what makes some people Aces is something called "situation awareness". Sometimes while driving I suddenly get suprised and think "where I am, when did I come here, what happened in the last 5 miles (bloody UK, still uses miles on roads)". Obviously I wasn't in danger or never put anyone in danger (in such cases my awareness sharpens quite suddenly and I do remember such situations). Scary isn't it? I guess this happens to quite a lot of people. Apparently people having "situation awareness" can recall any detail in even most complicated circumstances like air battles. There are millions of pilots but only a handful of real aces. (In my opinion people using electronics to kill an aircraft miles away do not count as aces).

Re:where this car fails miserably

[Anonymous Coward]

That happens to me a lot during sex.

Re:where this car fails miserably

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want the third dimension, I'd recommend you start driving in Hazzard County.

Re:where this car fails miserably

[Anonymous Coward]

My (limited) understanding of this is that ace pilots are very adept at constantly keeping track of who is where and doing what to whom through the entire air battle. Thats quite a feat when you have multiple aircraft moving at very high speed in three dimensional space. I also heard a quote from a pilot stating that only 1 in 5 fighter pilots are actually effective in a air battle because most pilots can't maintain the mental picture of the battle.

Re:where this car fails miserably

[M1FCJ]

This is called "Situation Awareness". Argh, I had a book about this, I can't find it.

So what?

[divine_13]

Well i guess that the fact of a vehicle being a bit more "economical" that others does not make it better. There are alot of other features; support, part prices, driving abilities etc.

Re:So what?

[JohnnyKlunk]

and whats the big deal about being "more economical than an SUV".

Thats like being "less monopolistic than microsoft".

Re:So what?

[Ryne]

It's true that it's not a good measurement to say that something is more economical than an SUV.

However, I do think it shows how insanely uneconomical and how bad for the environment an SUV really is if it uses more gas than a freakin' *flying* vehicle!

Re:So what?

[arkane1234]

Considering an SUV can carry an entire family, camping gear, and possibly a baby stroller or two in the back, along with food for the week, I'd say that's a pretty good tradeoff.
I don't see this flying vehicle doing this :)

Vapor

[Lord Kano]

Moller and his Merlin series of personal aircraft have been on the drawing board since before most /.ers have been on the internet. I have yet to see one of them in flight.

LK

Re:Vapor

[in7ane]

Take a look here , it has a few videos (which do look quite real before somebody brings that up).

Re:Vapor

[elleomea]

There are a couple of videos of them actually in action at http://www.moller.com/news/media/

Re:Vapor

[gl4ss]

Hover demonstration doesn't count as this thing working as supposed(flying from one destination to another).

Re:Vapor

[Lord Kano]

"The wire connected to the top of this flying machine is there only because his insurance company requires it."

Uh huh.

Re:Vapor

[in7ane]

Not that implausible, the wire is not tight and so does not actually support the thing when it's hovering. And unless the crane adjusts the length of the wire it would still hit the ground if the engines cut off.

A more valid argument would be that it does not go all that high and potentially can't given the engines they got, also doesn't show how it would go from hovering to flying horizontally.

bumper sticker galore

[f64]

"my other car is enterprise"

"how's my warp trail?"

that's a start anyway : f64

Ummmm... my lawn mower is more efficient...

[Anonymous Coward]

Things that are more gas efficient that an SUV:
My lawn mower. My Cat. My Uncle Jacob.
Things that start with letters A to Z

Its astonishing

[Timesprout]

That someone actually spent 200 Million dollars on a project like this. Flying cars are a cool idea but lets face it totally impractical with todays infrastructure. Also given the paranoia over security today I cant imagine the US Govt being in any great hurry to allow the masses get airbourne.

I reckon he needs to find 400 people with more money that sense to but them as very expensive novelties to break even.

Re:Its astonishing

[adam mcmaster]

Flying cars are a cool idea but lets face it totally impractical with todays infrastructure.

That's true, but the fact that it wouldn't be useful today shouldn't prevent us from developing tomorrow's technology.

Re:Its astonishing

[BiggerIsBetter]

Also given the paranoia over security today I cant imagine the US Govt being in any great hurry to allow the masses get airbourne.

True enough. However there's plenty of small aircraft and even small jets available already. I guess only rich people should be allowed personal aircraft. I guess rich people aren't terrorists?

Re:Its astonishing

[dheltzel]

I guess only rich people should be allowed personal aircraft. I guess rich people aren't terrorists?

So you think that lowering the financial bar for aerial terrorists is a good thing?

I think the costs should be raised, anything that has the effect of making an attack more costly, will have some effect on reducing the frequency. Plus a botched attempt might costs as much as a successful one, making it more risky for the terrorists. That's why terrorsts prefer low-tech, low-cost weapons. There are a lot of failures and a lot of plots get discovered or the perps caught for something else. If the weapons were expensive it would be easier to starve them for funds. Their contributors might even start to question the cost/benefit ration, potentially dooming their organizations.

Re:Its astonishing

[BiggerIsBetter]

So you think that lowering the financial bar for aerial terrorists is a good thing?

I'll take that as a genuine question rather than you attempting to put words into my mouth.

I think lowering the financial bar for personal aircraft for *anyone* is a good idea. Cheap aircraft can be had, but you're looking at some pretty old designs and hardware. Making better craft cheaper is a good thing, and can make flying safer for those that want to. The idea of raising prices to a point where only the extremely wealthy and suitably large corporations can do so smacks of elitism and "corporatism". Eg, common people shouldn't be allowed to do things, some of them might do something bad! Better only let the good (rich/white/christian/political/etc) people do those things, or only companies so we can regulate them (and because most sensible well off folks use companies as vehicles for their finances anyway).

Personally, I like the idea of jumping in a cheap reliable plane and flying somewhere nice and remote to go camping for the weekend, but people like you would rather see me "under control" and put through security checks and 3 hour check-in queues - because that's "safer" isn't it? And as I understand it, terrorists are rather well funded already, so don't kid yourself that life will be rosy if you price anything interesting out of the Joe Public market.

Look buddy, keep your paranoia to yourself. The US has got the largest military spend in the world and bases in everyone else's countries... but now you're getting pissy over letting some average dude fly his family around because you think someone might attack you? In a 4-seater Cessna? Uh, that's been within terrorists reach for *decades*. There's some serious introspection needed here...

Re:Its astonishing

[smokin_juan]

"Also given the paranoia over security today I cant imagine the US Govt being in any great hurry to allow the masses get airbourne."

...security today? I'm suprized someone spent 200 million on this because the US govt has ALWAYS been a bunch of useless paranoid fucks. The reason we don't have the M400 yet is that the FAA has regulated it out of existance... They've given all that space to the commercial airliners just as they've given all that spectrum to the commercial broadcasters (given, sold something you didnt own, same thing).

You don't have the M400 today because that would alow you (or too many) too much freedom.
Eh, who gives a shit... Freedom is slavery anyhow.

Re:Its astonishing

[drinkypoo]

I hope you realize that the average person with slight technical skills can build an airplane if they are willing to follow instructions carefully, and for less than the price of a new car? Hell, I have a web bookmark to a book someplace that tells you how to make your own hand-laid carbon fiber aircraft. Now be realistic, if you can make your own aircraft for less than the cost of your explosives (if you're using anything interesting) what the hell would keeping complete-build units expensive accomplish? At least those can be licensed and tracked. A homebuilt, which will probably be vastly cheaper due to a (relative) lack of liability issues, will still be a better option. Furthermore, it is entirely possible to steal a plane, as people all over the USA own aircraft and live near small airstrips.

Re:Its astonishing

[king-manic]

rich/white/christian/political/etc

Look buddy some of the richest people in north america and well, in asia are chinese and japanese. The head of Canada's only major airline in chinese, the richest man in Jaimaca is chinese. So it's nto reserving it only for rich white people... umm it's reservign it for white people and some yellow people. :)

Re:Its astonishing

[linzeal]

Most likely these will be not be "flown" in the traditional sense and will require an onboard avionics package for safety but allow control towers to fly the plane. Is that what moller is waiting for? Someone to design the avionics package, where is my god damn flying car? I was promised one as a boy.

Re:Its astonishing

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the costs should be raised, anything that has the effect of making an attack more costly, will have some effect on reducing the frequency.

So you want to make something that's generally useful more costly, just so it costs the terrorists more too? Are you proposing this as a general strategy? Do you really think that's a good way to build a strong economy? And are you aware the Bin Laden has a large fraction of a billion dollars, so economically speaking he can do pretty much whatever he wants, whether or not it's affordable for you and me?

And in a way that makes sense...

[Anonymous Coward]

20 medieval distance units per medieval volume unit = 11.76 litres / 10 km.

Re:And in a way that makes sense...

[Anonymous Coward]

Doh! 11.76 litres / 100 km, of course.

Slow Down Cowboy!

Slashdot requires you to wait 2 minutes between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.

It's been 1 minute since you last successfully posted a comment

Chances are, you're behind a firewall or proxy, or clicked the Back button to accidentally reuse a form. Please try again. If the problem persists, and all other options have been tried, contact the site administrator.

More economical probably only on long distances.

[deragon]

I bet it is only more economical on long distances. I am sure that one needs to burn a lot of fuels just to go to the grocery 3 kms away. Takeoffs must not be cheap, nor landing as they are probably done slowly.

And it seam to seat only one person. Wait until you have the family size comming out (if ever).

I never believed in this flying car running on conventional engine. For a flying car to be practical, we would need a revolutionary engine, something like an "anti-gravity" engine that runs cheap. So the question is, how the inventor gets his funding for these prototypes? I have ideas that are much more realist (market wise) but still risky and I could never get funding for them. But how does this inventor get it? How can investors believe that they will eventually make money out of this flying car? I am jealous, and puzzled.

Wow

[ChronoWiz]

The future is finally here!

Re:Wow

[leakingmemory]

Just get PPL-A and have fun.

Skycar will never happen.

[Nick Driver]

Even if Moller can ever get this thing working (very, very doubtful based on the man and the machine's history thus far), the physics involved in a purely vectored-thrust/powered lift flying machine, make it the potentially most dangerous and unstable aircraft you can ever have. Unless all thrust generating and vectoring parts are always working perfectly 100% of the time, the machine will be completely uncontrollable. Think of Neil Armstrong's experience with the "flying bedstead" here. Heck, even a helicopter has a quasi-failsafe mode (autorotation) for landing under some semblence of the pilot still being under control of the aircraft in case of loss of power. As an experienced pilot, I certainly would not want to see the sky polluted with these deathtraps.

Re:Skycar will never happen.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ooohh...an experienced pilot ! Can I have your autograph ?
How many type ratings do you have ?

You forgot about the failure mode helicopters have
when the transmission locks up, Mr. Experienced Pilot.
When that happens, you can't autorotate, you can only drop
like a rock. While it's true that any decent helicopter will have
a chip detector to warn of this ( no, NOT a silicon chip detector )
transmissions still can and do lock up.

As for Armstrong's experience with the flying bedstead, the comparison with Moller's machine has little to recommend it. The flying bedstead didn't have computers assisting the pilot. Maybe you might want to think about the F-16's fly by wire system, or the fact that the F-117 is essentially uncontrollable without the stability augmentation it has courtesy of a computer-based fly-by-wire system. Oh, and several Boeing
and Airbus airliners also have fly-by-wire control systems.
Moller's project will fly some day, and you will be looking up
saying "but...but...I said it couldn't be done !"

You can go back to your video games now, Mr. Experienced Pilot.

Re:Skycar will never happen.

[Catbeller]

I have this suspicion that most people posting don't understand that the Skycar can glide. It's a plane. With wings. Control surfaces. It has eight wankel engines producing vented thrust coordinated by redundant controllers. Most of the flying chores are automagically smoothed out by the flight computers.

It can fly like any normal plane with only two of the eight engines operational. It doesn't have to VTOL; it can take off or land in the normal fashion. Since the engines are not mechanically linked in the normal sense, it would take a catastrophic failure to lose more than a few engines. You might lose the near-VTOL capability, but a pilot could land a troubled Moeller with less trouble than your average Cessna, theoretically. The power and control systems are far more redundant in a Moeller.

It's not a flying saucer. You might be confusing the Skycar with the "flying saucer" hovering testbed he made +-30 years ago?

If I'm not mistaken, the craft also has a 'chute that fires in an emergency. Or would, if someone would fund the poor man enough to build the full-scale prototype.

Anyone flying the Moeller would have to be a licensed pilot; this would cut down the "oops" factor.

Moeller has spent a lifetime thinking the engineering matters through. I wish he and Burt Rutan would have lunch sometime.

Re:Skycar will never happen.

[Sergeant Beavis]

While it is true that a rotory wing aircraft can have a transmission seize, it is incredibly rare. I was a UH-1H and UH-60A crewcheif for 8 years and in my short military career I've never once heard of it happening. The odds of losing two engines (UH-60) and the main mod (aka tranny) have to be so high that you'd have better luck winning the lotto.

However, the rest of your points are dead on.

Oh, and the post your were refering to forgot that the M400 has a Ballistic Recovery System (aka a parachute).

Re:Skycar will never happen.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Even if Moller can ever get this thing working (very, very doubtful based on the man and the machine's history thus far), the physics involved in a purely vectored-thrust/powered lift flying machine, make it the potentially most dangerous and unstable aircraft you can ever have"

What worries me is more the issue of air traffic control. Or a driver/pilot having a stroke at the joystick and flying into a primary school, or a dozen other low risk high consequence scenarios. Until we have completely fool proof automated ATC and a plane-car that flies itself, maybe. And that will be a long time coming, I suspect, due to the length of time it takes to fully debug safety critical systems.

Re:Skycar will never happen.

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish he and Burt Rutan would have lunch sometime.

That's the best idea I've heard all year.

Re:Skycar will never happen.

[dustmite]

What worries me is more the issue of air traffic control. Or a driver/pilot having a stroke at the joystick and flying into a primary school, or a dozen other low risk high consequence scenarios. Until we have completely fool proof automated ATC and a plane-car that flies itself, maybe. And that will be a long time coming, I suspect, due to the length of time it takes to fully debug safety critical systems.

Why does it have to be 100% safe before using it should be considered? That's silly. Cars are far from being safe and we use them all the time, in spite of the fact that tens of thousands of people die every year in car accidents, quite possibly around 100,000 people a year worldwide. Of course there are going to be accidents in flying cars, but unless the accident rate is higher than with cars, why would it be so much of a problem that the whole idea should just be shelved? Sure a pilot may have a stroke and crash into a primary school. Things like that will happen. But accidents are part of every mode of human travel, but we don't reject those other modes of travel unless the accident rate is so high as to make the mode impractical for general use.

video link

[mm0mm]

details of M400 here.

the site has video/media page as well, in which you can see noisy hover test.

I don't mean to be cynic, but I couldn't help wondering what practical use this vehicle may have. with two passengers maximum, this looks to me like fancy miata of aircraft. maybe this can become California governor's commuter vehicle, but I don't want to see dozens of these flying around above my neighborhood.

Re:video link

[Slashamatic]

The M400 can carry 4 people, you linked to the M200 (which has actually been flight tested). The concept of the Sky-Car requires some serious infrastructure (being researched by NASA) allowing much of the control to be asserted by specialist traffic systems, resulting in the so-called "Highways in the Sky".

Re:video link

[mforbes]

Yeah, and people couldn't figure out what good electricity or radio were when they were first (commercially) introduced. Many policitians and members of the clergy thought the only use for radio would be to broadcast Sunday morning sermons for those who couldn't get to church.

Here's another one: British Prime Minister Gladstone once asked the father of electromagnetic induction, Michael Faraday, what the results of his current research might be. Faraday replied, "I don't know, but I'm sure you'll find a way to tax it."

(with apologies to http://www.draughonpa.com/drletter/drltr021.pdf, from which I directly lifted that entire paragraph).

Damnit, I'm supposed to be the neoluddite around here, stop trying usurp my role!

The future is later

[BalloonMan]

If you get tired of waiting for flying cars, try some "life extending" organic almond butter from the good Dr. Moller.

Re:The future is later

[Anonymous Coward]

From the site:

Available in two styles: Creamy and Chunky, both varieties are produced with a touch of sea salt for flavor. No preservatives. Refrigerate after opening. Oil separation occurs naturally in non-homogenized nut butters. Please stir before serving. 16 ounce jars.

Ewww. No wonder Dr. Moller can't get his shit together with the Skycar...Sittin' around squeezin out jars and jars of his salty nut butter. The Dr. be TIRED.

Re:The future is later

[Anonymous Coward]

If you get tired of waiting for flying cars, try some "life extending" organic almond butter from the good Dr. Moller.

Heh, believe it or not I've purchased a jar of that before. Some of the best damned almond butter I've ever had. Mixed well with honey and added a small piece of heaven to whatever it was used with. Perhaps it's time to get another bottle, now that I know what he's using the profits for...

CopyCat.

[JohnGlenn]

He's about 50 years too late!

http://www.museumofflight.org/collections/craftdis play.html?ID=3

Fly your own M400 with X-Plane

[Guido del Confuso]

If you feel like taking one of these for a little test drive, you can find a virtual version here.

You need X-Plane to use it. Check it out. X-Plane is actually a pretty sweet flight sim.

Re:Fly your own M400 with X-Plane

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly I only have X-Plane 6.51. I wish X-Plane would offer cut-price upgrades to 7.x

So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Flying vehicles should look like a Messerschmitt Me-262, otherwise it has nothing to do in our airspace. This thing does not look like an Me-262. Stay on the ground!

Why compromise...

[TooMuchEspressoGuy]

...when you can have both in one! Flying SUV's! The noise pollution of the flying car and the gas-guzzling capacity of a Mac truck.

Seriously, how long do you think it will be before one of these is invented? With the American consumer market interested in style and power over economic- and environmentally-safe auto's, I'm guessing about three days after a smaller version of the flying car is available.

Flamebait? Stupid mods

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoever meta-moderates this, make sure you slap down the stupid punk-ass bitch who decided to moderate it flamebait

Re:More economical probably only on long distances

[turgid]

I am sure that one needs to burn a lot of fuels just to go to the grocery 3 kms away.

Try a bicycle or Shanks's Pony.

Obviously...

[Epistax]

I was under the impression that a tanker exploding was more environmentally friendly than an SUV. Better mileage too.

Re:Obviously...

[jez9999]

Ah, but does that have better fuel efficiency than the Ultimate Behemoth?

Of course it's more economical

[YrWrstNtmr]

A vehicle made out of vapor should get damned impressive gas mileage.

So it gets 20mpg on the ground. How is that significant?
The damn thing doesn't exist yet
What's it's gas mileage in the air? After all....that the point of this thing.

Moller has been shilling people for years over this thing.

It would be damn expensive
It would still require a pilots license
It would still require an airport and runway to land. Unless of course he has the navigation and control system down to sub-1 meter accuracy. hahaha
Did I mention its vaporware?

Re:Of course it's more economical

[argent]

Moller's taken on a tough job, trying to design and build a safe and affordable flying car, and he may not succeed, but by the gods and their pet demons it's terribly churlish of you to call this man's vision "shilling people for years".

He's built it, It's flown, it's not a product yet but it's not bleeding "vapor".

Re:Of course it's more economical

[YrWrstNtmr]

Flown?

For a couple hundred G's, I could cobble together a few snowmobile rotary engines, a body, and some hovercraft style fans and 'fly' it on a tether.

"Presently all test flights of the M400 Skycar employ a safety tether from above to protect the vehicle from catastrophic failure."

Sure, it lifts off the ground. It even goes up about 20 feet or so.
Transition to forward flight? Nope.
Controlled, autonav flight from Point A to B? Nope.
Affordable? You tell me.

And this doesn't address the question of how this thing will be used. I can't see it (if it ever works) as being flown from anywhere other than an airport. For the depicted use (A Flying Car), it would need sub 1 meter control and nav.
Would you trust Bill from marketing, after a 3 martoonie lunch with a client, to land this thing in the parking lot next to your Boxster? With a 20mph crosswind? I wouldn't.
So, you are tied to an airport type facility. With a runway or large landing pad. Why not just use a Cessna?

As a car, it makes for crappy driving. Limited to 30-35mph. As a plane, well...it's a plane. The two realms are different enough as to make this concept a non-starter.

Re:Of course it's more economical

[argent]

What's your point?

I didn't claim it was practical or possible. Just that your contemptuous dismissal of Moller as a con-artist and the volantor as mere vapor is unfair.

yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

flying cars will never, ever be a reality, as far as i'm concerned. people have a hard enough time driving a car on the ground, let alone flying up to 365mph in the sky.

Plaguarism

[JoeyLemur]

Nice plaguarism with submitting that story... not even a mention of The Register, who had that text word for word.

Re:Plaguarism

[JoeyLemur]

Ah, hell... I didn't see the link in the story. Is my face red now...

Re:Plaguarism

[Anonymous Coward]

It gets worse, JoeyLemur !

Not only is your reading comprehension poor, but
you can't spell either.

p-l-a-g-i-a-r-i-s-m

The point isn't the practicality of flying cars

[Jonas the Bold]

The point is how much SUVs suck. There is no excuse for having worse fuel efficiancy than a fucking airplane.

Re:The point isn't the practicality of flying cars

[Neophytus]

bravo!

Re:The point isn't the practicality of flying cars

[jcam2]

I think a more interesting and fairer comparison would be an SUV vs. a real airplane with a similar passenger capacity, such as a Cessna ..

Re:The point isn't the practicality of flying cars

[tommck]

If you read the article, that's the mileage it gets _on_the_ground_... not in the air!

Heck, it probably ways less than many SUVs too! Probably has no towing capacity and is extremely streamlined...

More appropriately (because of its shape), it should be compared with sporty cars and, there, it's not so great..

Re:The point isn't the practicality of flying cars

[Anonymous Coward]

"I think a more interesting and fairer comparison would be an SUV vs. a real airplane with a similar passenger capacity, such as a Cessna .."

It's been done, more or less. Years ago, Flying magazine compared the fuel economy of a Grumman TR-2 airplane with that of a Ford Pinto. To be fair, the Pinto held 4 people, and the Grumman only held two, but we all know that most cars rarely
carry their max passenger capacity.

At any rate, the airplane won, based on gallons of gas used to
go from point A to point B. The car was of course quite a bit slower. But a comparision of economy of cars and airplanes is
kind of pointless anyway. The two machines are good for different things.

If you've ever had the chance to travel in a private plane, and go
where, when, and how you wanted to go, you will know that
even a basic single engine plane makes cars look stupid.

I used to fly from Annapolis MD to a town in VA, and the same trip took 1.1 hours in a plane, and easily over 2.5 in the car. And then there was the stress of driving through hellish traffic
( the Beltway around D.C.). If you can fly ( and not everyone can)
flying is a great way to travel.

Acting as your own pilot is, well, a bit less forgiving of mistakes
than driving a car. As such, unless and until truly automated
aircraft are available, flying will never be something the masses
can engage in, even if it were free. Then again, it *would* be a
good way to clean up the gene pool...

Re:The point isn't the practicality of flying cars

[SaDan]

Eh?

I'd like to see you tow a boat with your airplane. Or how about fit a family of five with all their luggage in the air plane, and tow a camper?

Apples and oranges here... SUVs may suck fuel, and never leave the ground, but airplanes suck at towing, and just about everything else while they're on the ground.

Re:The point isn't the practicality of flying cars

[the pickle]

Try it sometime.

A Cessna 182, for example, which has approximately the same passenger capacity as a Chevrolet Blazer or Ford Explorer, gets slightly worse mileage (ca. 15 mpg or so) but at 3-4x the speed.

I'll take the massive time benefit over a few gallons of AVGAS any day. Then again, I can't fly the 182 to my kids' soccer practise...

p

Re:The point isn't the practicality of flying cars

[The Evil Couch]

of course, the average SUV driver never tows anything and never goes off road or any of the other useful features of it. at most, they'd cram the luggage rack full of groceries.

Re:The point isn't the practicality of flying cars

[BlackHorse]

Well, you could, but your kid might be a little embarassed by their game being stalled by you landing in the field.

Re:The point isn't the practicality of flying cars

[drinkypoo]

Did you know that hitting return at the end of each line just produces less readable text for everyone? Especially if you forget to hit return occasionally? Guess not.

I'm curious to find out when we the people are going to experience our "peace dividend" results from the fly-by-wire systems in modern military aircraft. Given that the military now has aircraft which could not be flown without computer assistance behaving as if they were ordinary (if ungainly) planes, as well as aircraft which are entirely capable of doing independent takeoffs and landings, it would be nice to see some of that technology make it into the consumer space so that more people could pilot aircraft, and in order to reduce in-flight mishaps. Have a seizure while sitting at the stick? The plane will put itself into an automatic mode when it detects a dangerous situation and doesn't receive an override from you, and will land itself on an emergency strip at the nearest convenient airport. (It would be a grave mistake to have them land in the same place as everyone else.) Of course, VTOL craft can just go land themselves on a little helipad-sized dot someplace.

The skycar and other vehicles like it (not that there are any that I'm aware of yet) have the potential to open up some truly remote locations and make them livable, which is what I find attractive about it. Certainly its fuel economy is not what we'd like to see in our next-generation vehicles, but flight carries a certain penalty and with minimal lifting surface you're going to have to make the compromise of fuel consumption. The fact that it consumes as little fuel as it does (assuming the numbers are real and not projected) is a true testament to Moller's abilities.

Re:The point isn't the practicality of flying cars

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll have to scan in some pages from the 1942 book "Britain's Wonderful Airforce" which shows how Lysanders could deliver mail by parachute, and pick it up via a hook system.

Re:The point isn't the practicality of flying cars

[Some Dumbass...]

If you read the article, that's the mileage it gets _on_the_ground_... not in the air!

Which by the way, brings us to another point. In air travel, you have to go up and down a certain amount. Imagine that you wanted to go ten miles in this thing, but were expected to fly at an altitude of one mile. That's twelve miles of travel where a car would have gone ten.

A flyng vehicle might be able to compensate for this by taking a more direct route (going the "as the crow flies" route :) but that would only last for so long. If these things ever got common, some kind sky highways (routes which are allowed for travel) would presumably be developed.

The point is, there's another little hitch in the direct comparison of mpg between this thing and a car.

Re:The point isn't the practicality of flying cars

[arkane1234]

By the same note, the "average" porsche/bmw/lamborghini owner doesn't take their car up to 160+ MPH, nor stress the suspension like they are designed for.

Your point?

I'd venture to say more people use an SUV or towing/family hauling/etc than what I was talking about.

Re:The point isn't the practicality of flying cars

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm, your average 4-person, high-wing, single engine aircraft has maybe 90-100hp and uses less gas than an economy car. Aerodynamics go a long way.

That said, there is no way this craft gets 20 mpg at cruising speed. The STOL(short takeoff) requirement and the stated 770 hp means something doesn't add up.

Re:The point isn't the practicality of flying cars

[thomasdelbert]

The article says it gets 20 miles per gallon. Most new midsize and some full size SUVs get at least 20 miles per gallon on the highway. City milage is not a valid comparison unless this flying car is in stop-and-go traffic.

Oh yeah, I would like to see this fucking airplane tow your fucking boat.

Just my $0.02

- Thomas;

Re:The point isn't the practicality of flying cars

[ImpTech]

Pfft, most SUVs get around 20mpg anyway. Check fueleconomy.gov if you don't believe me. Also the flying car pretty much just flies. It appears to be a two seater, presumably has severe weight limits... in short, it can't DO any of the things SUVs are good for. Heck, I doubt you'd even want to fly it in the snow. If you want a vehicle thats fuel efficient, profoundly unsafe, and doesn't carry a lot, get a freaking motorcycle! Flying cars continue to be a dumb idea.

Re:The point isn't the practicality of flying cars

[hobbsbutcher]

Planes and SUV's burn different kinds of fuel. Jet A (for jets mostly) is mostly kerosene, Avgas (100ll - for props mostly) still has lead in it, whereas SUV fuel gas is the stuff we're used to putting in our cars. I don't know exactly how they can be compared.

Who cares about fuel economy?

[Bender Unit 22]

I do(or rather, I would if a shortage of money was an issue), because due to local taxes created by enviromental nuts in the goverment, I pay over twice as much as people in the US for my fuel.
But if the prices were on the same level, I wouldn't give a xxxx.
But then again, I might. Because then I would buy a much larger and less economic car than I would need which would use twice the amount of fuel and I would be in the same situation again. :D

btw, the same enviromental nuts had put a 200% tax on cars so I bought a car from 1987 for 2500$.
I do plan ,however, that my next car should be one that can run on unleaded fuel and have a catalysator. Maybe even have a few safty features such as airbags etc.
But I'd be dammed if I want to spend 30000$ just to buy a 90hp compact(3 door hatchback type).

So where am I going with all this? Well raising price on a item, gas, heating, electricity will make people try to save it, but at a certain level it just backfires. High prices on heating are another example. Small suburbs has shown to have the same low quality of air as the smog plaqued big city, due to the homeowners installing a wood furnace to save money on heating. The problem is that what they are buring in them and the way they are doing it are causing a lot of bad particles to be released.

Flying cars for under $10,000

[dankjones]

They're called ultralight airplanes, and it doesn't seem like it would be difficult to modify one to drive on the ground.

It would probably get about the same mileage as a motorcycle as well.

Hmm.. shouldn't the topic be:

[AnswerIs42]

"Toys for geeks. Fantasy that matters."?

No way these things would ever be legal.. and to be honest.. I would be afraid for my life and my loved ones with these things flying about.

Maybe, a slim maybe, these things will be a reality in my grandchildres lifetime. I hope not..

But then, now that I think about it.. all the morons will move to the air leaving the roads clear.. al I would have to dodge would be the falling debri as they crash into each other above me.

Place your orders here

[logic-gate]

Buy one here

Anyone got a spare $100,000 for the deposit?

The sky is three-dimensional

[jbellis]

There would have to be many times more skycars than there are currently automobiles for congestion to be "just as bad."

Re:The sky is three-dimensional

[Tango42]

Very true, and road building is so much easier, but chances are people will all fly in designated zones at set heights (similar to how planes do know, just more restrictive), so there could easilly be problems - although accidents won't cause jams, for obvious reasons.

Finally!

[Progman3K]

I've been waiting for my flying car since the 1950s!
And now they're finally here!

On the contrary ..

[Anonymous Coward]

For people with more money than sense.

the people that would actually consider buying
these things .. issues like MPG is ALWAYS..

Going to be an ISSUE.
People with money, simply don't want to waiste it!

it's only people without money that do!

Re:On the contrary ..

[UniverseIsADoughnut]

Surveys have shown that mileage is pretty low on the list of issues considered when buying a vehicle for anyone. Sure if you ask them if mileage is important they will say yes. But when they go and actualy buy a car it's not much of a concern. Other things are more important. Like looks, cost, practicality and so forth. And in the end of the day gas is dirt cheap, consider how much you drive a year, how long you will keap that car, and the mileage gain for the more efficient car over something else, for most people going for the higher milage just isn't worth it. It's cheaper to have one all around vehicle that can do all you need when you need it, then to have multiple vehicles that don't fill all your needs.

Getting good mileage is a good thing, but it's not something you trade off things for.

Re:On the contrary ..

[modge]

That may be the case in america but in england petrol costs an absolute fortune. I have a shitty 1.3 escort and it's the best bit of 40 to fill the tank up (40 = $70 give or take)

ARGH! Not Moller on Slashdot AGAIN!

[Anonymous Coward]

Moller has been bilking investors since the *70's* with his phoney flying cars. I have magazines from the early 1980's showing his flying car and saying he'll have them in production in the *next year*.

All this "better than an SUV mileage" crap is just him trying to get his name in the investor market. Preying upon the fears of high fuel prices.

And for Simpsons fans

[HeghmoH]

20 miles/gallon = 537,600 rods/hogshead

And they laughed at the Kyoto protocol.

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty lame of them. Not only lame "de per se" but also done in public.

"Less with more". This is so American it should be in their national anthem. Yet, how far have they wandered from their original core values which garnered admiration from all the world in the past.

Must be because of the fifties...

Re:More economical probably only on long distances

[sydb]

You're assuming these people have functional legs. Homo Sapiens is slowly evolving a single limb which is only useful for the control of the gas and the brake, and the Americans are leading the way.

Fortunately most other nations still use a manual clutch, thus ensuring a full compliment of the requisite bodily appendages for human powered propulsion.

Why stop there?

[tommck]

I'm holding out for the Winnebago! :)

Re:And you're a poor little troll

[Anonymous Coward]

But of course, in most normal accidents, having an SUV means jack squat in terms of safety, and in fact can be even more dangerous due to a risk of tipping on sharp turns and whatnot, unless you get a real expensive SUV that's actually designed well. The only time an SUV is preferable to a normal car in an accident is when you're in an accident with a really big SUV. Even the most casual observation will show you that having an SUV doesn't in general make YOU safer, just increases the risk that you'll seriously injure someone else.

And you thought insensitive clod was just for poll options.

WTF?

[Cthefuture]

Am I missing something or what?

65 dBa is quiet. Those crappy old desktop computers put out more sound than that. Most high quality cars have an interior road noise level of around 65 dBa at 60 MPH.

Did they mean 165 dBa or something? (now that that would be loud as hell)

Re:WTF?

[warrax_666]

It's 65dBa at 500 feet. Since loudness decreases/increases quadratically (which I think it does, not 100% sure though) with distance it would be much louder when you're closer to the vehicle.

Re:WTF?

[Catbeller]

A thought occurs: why in hell would anyone be allowed to cruise at 500 feet??

What's the dBa at 5000 feet?

Re:WTF?

[Reverberant]

It's 65dBa at 500 feet. Since loudness decreases/increases quadratically

Warrax_666 makes a good point. (and to answer your question, sound usually decays at a rate of 10*log10(D/Dref) for line-sources and 20*log10(D/Dref) for point sources, although ground absorption and atmospheric absorption can cause more rapid attenuation in certain circumstances).

65 dBA at 500 feet translates to 85 dBA at 50 ft (assuming point source propagation, which is probably reasonable).

For comparison:

• Locomotive idling @ 50 ft: 80 dBA
• Bus idling @ 50 ft: 75 dBA
• Automobile @ 50 ft, 50 mph: 70 dBA
• Diesel locomotive @ 50 ft, 50 mph: 92 dBA
• Transit train (electric) @ 50 ft, 50 mph: 86 dBA
• Train horn @ 50 ft: 105 dBA

So in short, it's louder than cars traveling at 50 mph, but not as bad as a train horn. Also keep in mind that if the flying car is, well, flying, there won't be anything to shield the noise from the vehicle, and that may make it louder than normal cars in practice.

Re:WTF?

[Peyna]

There are not that many buildings/structures over 500 foot in most areas. It would depend on your location, but why waste all that thrust on climbing if you don't need to?

Re:WTF?

[Some Dumbass...]

65 dBa is quiet.

That's _per_ flying car, of course. Hopefully these don't get too popular.

Then again, I suppose that regular cars are pretty loud as well. I'm not sure how loud exactly. That's probably the most important comparison.

Also, as I believe someone else pointed out, you have to land eventually. 65dba at 500 feet equals what exactly at 10ft off the ground?

Re:WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

42 dBA Whisper at 3 feet
63 to 65 dBA Normal speech at 3 feet
70 dBA City street
70 dBA Vacuum cleaner at 10 feet
80-90 dBA Dog barking at 10 feet
60-92 dBA Helicopter at 500 feet
88-98 dBA Train at 50 feet
90 dBA Interstate traffic
120 dBA Propeller plane on take off
125 dBA Threshold of pain
130 dBA Jet plane at 100 feet

Re:WTF?

[snarkh]

Of course they are quiet.
They don't even exist!

Re:WTF?

[bgeer]

Yes you are missing something, it says 65 dBa at 500 feet! That means everyone within a 500 foot radius (an area of about 785000 sq feet) will experience a sound nearly as loud as a vacuum cleaner.

How bad is it for the driver then? Applying the inverse square law to go from 500 feet to 5 feet (roughly the interior of the flying car) and we get 100^2 = 10^4, multiply by 65 dBa and we have a painful 105 dBa for the person flying the car.

If they actually did mean 165 dBa, then the interior would be 205 dBa, which is about the same experience as pressing your ear against the main gun of a battleship as it fires, i.e. pop go the eardrums.

Re:WTF?

[Reverberant]

If they actually did mean 165 dBa, then the interior would be 205 dBa, which is about the same experience as pressing your ear against the main gun of a battleship as it fires, i.e. pop go the eardrums.

I know you're being facetious, but for the record, the max SPL limit you can have on Earth (at sea level) 180 dB.

65 decibels?

[LeBlanc_Joey]

If that is 65 decibels it is NOT loud, from howstuffworks.com :

• Near total silence - 0 dB
• A whisper - 15 dB
• Normal conversation - 60 dB
• A lawnmower - 90 dB
• A car horn - 110 dB
• A rock concert or a jet engine - 120 dB
• A gunshot or firecracker - 140 dB

Re:65 decibels?

[Anonymous Coward]

Other things louder than 65 dB:

• Heavy Traffic - 70 dB
• Inside car on highway - 70-80dB

Re:65 decibels?

[Anonymous Coward]

Cell phone conversation - 75 dB

Re:65 decibels?

[Reverberant]

Unfortunately, since the website doesn't give distances for those sound levels, these data are pretty much useless. It's a mistake that many sources make when they try to help us "relate" to sound levels.

Is that lawnmower right next to you? In the neighbor's yard? In the next state?

Re:65 decibels?

[Anonymous Coward]

Me farting - 100 dB

Re: I'd like to see a lot gyrocopters in the sky..

[Anonymous Coward]

If you get one, be sure to order the "anti-theft snake" option !

( for those who don't get this, it's a reference to the film
"The Road Warrior" )

Re:And you're a poor little troll

[Anonymous Coward]

Got news for ya - We're all passengers on this big spherical vehicle. We have a mutual interest in avoiding nasty accidents. Oh, and it's my turn to pick the radio station!

Reality Check

[xyote]

Flying as a mode of transportation only works because there are relatively few aircraft in the air so they can be kept really far apart, and the pilots are well trained.

It is repeatedly demonstrated every single day that ordinary drivers cannot handle 1 dimension in driving, let alone 2 dimensions such as intersections and multi lane roads. 3 dimensions is completely out of the question. Are you totally insane?

Re:Reality Check

[Sergeant Beavis]

The FAA only requires that aircraft fly 500 feet apart from one another, unless they are in formation. Add to that, the fact that there is sooooo much sky out there and you have a lot of room. The only real congestion in the air right now is above major airport hubs and even that is very manageable. However, you are correct that improvements need to be made. It is difficult to orient yourself over 3 axis, so NASA and several other groups have been working on a new navigation system which would create virtual highways in the sky. In fact that is one of the technologies that Moller is counting on. This technology is also aimed to take airtraffic away from the major hubs and get more aircraft out to the regional and smaller airports. The US has 10s of thousands of airstrips that could easily handle a huge increase in aircraft traffic. Your last point about bad drivers is moot IMO though. Car drivers receive little or no training before getting their licenses. Fixed and rotory wing pilot must undergo a MINIMUM of 40 hours of flight training before getting lisenced. Classes can cost over 3000 bucks. That greatly minimizes the amount of bad pilots out there.

Re:Reality Check

[koreth]

3 dimensions means you probably are really far apart from someone who'd be right next to you on the ground -- you can be right behind him, but 1000 feet higher up. Plus the vehicles aren't constrained to narrow roadways in specific places as they are on the ground.

I'd be much less worried about my safety while in the air than while taking off or (especially) landing. I can just see 500 people simultaneously spotting a parking spot at some popular concert venue and all trying to land as close to it as they can.

Re:Reality Check

[drinkypoo]

That's why this vehicle can also travel on roads, though it's not particularly well designed for it. You will land in certain specified zones and then drive a short distance to your destination. Personally, for most purposes, I'd rather land and then whip out an electric bicycle or something.

Re:Reality Check

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like you're counting on that to be the case even when flying things are given to the masses. It probably won't.

Re:Reality Check

[Lord_Dweomer]

"It is difficult to orient yourself over 3 axis, so NASA and several other groups have been working on a new navigation system which would create virtual highways in the sky."

I won't be impressed until they can make lane dividers that hover in the sky ala Back to the Future II.

Re:Reality Check

[xyote]

I'm thinking more of the numbers they're talking about to reach the $50 thousand price tag. Think more of the traffic in 5th Element rather than those early Popular Science covers. That bears as much to reality as those car commercials showing a car all by itself in some pristine wilderness does to rush hour in any large city.

Re:Reality Check

[(mandos)]

According to Dr. Moller's recent comments it sounds like average people won't be "flying" M400s. Apparently, a large (nationwide) system is being put in place to further aid automatic flight systems, and this one, when operational, should allow the M400 to fly itself. I'm guessing that a "pilot" will need some training in taking off and landing but otherwise won't be needed. However, based on what I've seen the military doing with unmanned aircraft maybe pilots won't be needed at all.

As a side note to that, I think the current US government will greatly favor it for two reaons. First, it gurantees IDing all travelers on this system and second you can't take over a computer flown aircraft with a gun or knife.

Personally, I'm looking forward to being able to surf the California beach in the morning and making it back to Salt Lake City in the afternoon for some snow boarding!

Mike Scanlon

Re:And you're a poor little troll

[Anonymous Coward]

"I am getting the largest damned SUV I can, so I can survive accidents."

That's funny !

Though you are good at macho posturing, you have NO conscience regarding the environment nor do you have
a grasp of what a truly safe vehicle is. True safety comes from
a structure with good ability to aborb energy while maintaining
a safe "core structure" to protect the occupants. And SUVs
aren't worth a damn at this, you dumb shit.

You should get an SUV - it will make it easie for the rest of us
to recognize you for what you are : an ignorant selfish consumptive jerkoff, just like the rest of the people who drive SUVs.

If you're really a tough guy, post your name and address, so we can come over and SEE your new SUV...

infra-consumption

[moviepig.com]

... a fuel consumption of 20 miles to the gallon on the road ...

Wonder what the effective mileage would be if adjusted for the resulting reduced wear-and-tear on that road.

So Michael, how do *you* get around?

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead of a 3500-pound SUV that gets 18 MPG, do you drive a 2700-pound "compact" car that gets 26 MPG?

Woo hoo. Way to sacrifice your convenience for the environment.

I meant "More with less"

[Anonymous Coward]

That was very clumsy of mine...

Moeller needs to just give it up

[Anonymous Coward]

In today's world, these things will probably never be allowed to fly anywhere near nuclear plants or major cities for "security reasons."

Where is most of the traffic congestion that these skycars are designed to lessen/avoid? Yup, major cities.

So, thanks to the specter of a single motivated terrorist renting a SkyCar from Enterprise or Budget, tucking his suitcase nuke into its trunk, and blending into the normal skyway traffic of rush hour commuters flying into Manhattan, the utility of these things will be legislated away.

Compared to a SUV

[hobbes75]

Any reasonable car is more eco-friendly compared to a SUV or Hummer. That's why one should NOT compare to the later.

MOD PARENT DOWN

[localroger]

The author of the parent comment knows just enough about gyrocopters to tell a lot of shit-stirring lies.

First and foremost, gyrocopters can't stall. At all. That's why they were invented. Juan de la Cierva was obsessed with the dangers of stalling in fixed-wing aircraft, which is why he devoted his life to promoting the autogyro. (Ironically enough, he actually died when the fixed-wing aircraft he was riding in stalled and crashed.)

Autogyros aren't used commercially because helicopters are better at VTOL, slow-speed and hover flight, and fixed-wing aircraft are more fuel efficient and faster for distance and heavy lifting.

You can get a personal Experimental class autogyro for under $20,000 (about the same as the less expensive fixed-wing EA class kits) and they're much safer than either fixed-wing craft or (especially) helicopters for novice flyers.

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN

[GooberToo]

I'm sorry, but you've been sadly misinformed. I did, however, make one mistake. I stated that the leaded edge could stall in a head wind, which is incorrect. It's the trailing edge which stalls in a high speed head wind.

MOD THIS POST DOWN BECAUSE HE IS COMPLETELY CLUELESS!

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN

[Anonymous Coward]

> ...they're much safer than either fixed-wing
> craft or (especially) helicopters for novice
> flyers.

You HAVE to be kidding/trolling us. Check the FAA accident statistics and reports. There were 19 fatal autogyro accidents reported to the FAA between 1996 and 2001. In 1997 there were about 2000 registered autogyros. Your odds in a fixed-wing are MUCH better.

See: http://safecopter.arc.nasa.gov/Pages/Columns/Accid ents/NASA%20TP%20209597.pdf

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN

[GooberToo]

That's exactly right! The statistics exactly reflect dangers that I outlined. Anyone that thinks that gyrocopters are safer than GA planes are either idiots or fools.

The are death traps for ALL of the reasons I outlinned.

Please mod the ignorant grandparent post back down as it's completely wrong and not support by physics nor accident statistics.

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN

[The Evil Couch]

yes and no. they're safer in some respects and more dangerous in others.

here, text from the wikipedia

Flight characteristics

Autogyros are often regarded by fixed-wing aircraft pilots as "dangerously unstable", which is certainly true if one tries to fly a autogyro using fixed-wing principles. Piloted properly, a autogyro is slightly safer than a fixed-wing aircraft because it cannot stall. A "stall" does not mean an engine-out event, it means a fixed wing aircraft is travelling too slowly for the wings to produce lift. Since the rotor of a autogyro is always spinning, it cannot stall. If forward airspeed becomes zero, the autogyro will slowly drift to the ground, rotor still spinning. A vertical landing in this manner will not critically damage most autogyros.

One weakness in the autogyro is pitch instability (pitch is the tilting up or down of the craft as viewed from the front or the back). Pitch instability is a problem because autogyros cannot handle negative-gee forces (positive-gee forces push people into their seats; negative-gee forces make people float out of them, such as driving down a steep hill at high speed in an automobile). Negative-gee forces "unload the rotor". A flying autogyro hangs from the rotor much like an object hung from a string. As long as the plane is hanging from the rotor, stability is maintained. The instant zero or negative-gees are introduced, rotor speed begins to decay and the gyroscopic forces stabilizing the plane are lost.

Negative-gees are usually caused by Pilot-Induced Oscillation, or PIO. PIO happens when a pilot adjusts his pitch too much too quickly, then makes a countering control input to bring the pitch back. The countering input often overcompensates, and the autogyro begins to buck like a bronco. This is most likely at high engine throttle settings. If the pilot continues to fight the plane, the rotor (which is flexible) usually flops down and strikes the spinning propeller, which destroys both and sends the autogyro into an uncontrolled fall. The way to avoid this during an incipient PIO is to apply gentle backpressure on the stick (to raise pitch) and cut engine power. Note that this is the exact opposite of what fixed-wing pilots are trained to do when in trouble, which has lead to some unfortunate accidents and the autogyro's undeserved reputation for being "dangerous".

Another danger is "bunting over" or a Power Push-Over (PPO). A autogyro's vertical airspeed (climb or sink rate) is directly coupled to airspeed. Increase forward airspeed, increase rate of climb. In order to maintain level flight at high engine throttle settings, the pilot must tilt the rotor forward to translate some of his lift into forward motion. Too much tilt, and the autogyro's overall pitch will aim down towards the ground. When this happens, negative-gees occur, rotor speed drops too low to provide lift, and the autogyro tumbles end-over-end in a sommersault. It is impossible to regain control after a PPO.

Two factors lead to pitch instability: no or too small horizontal stabilizers (h-stabs) and high thrustline engine placement. A large h-stab, ideally in the prop wash (where the propeller blows on it) will reduce the tendency of a autogyro to over-pitch as a result of improper control input.

If the engine thrustline in a pusher-type autogyro is high -- meaning the axis of propeller power is above the center of gravity for the aircraft -- the autogyro tends to pitch forward under sudden power application (see PPOs above, as for why this is Bad). (Unfortunately, Benson-type autogyros have a notably high thrustline.) If the thrustline is low, the autogyro tends to pitch up under sudden power application, which is harmless. It's difficult to have a low thrustline without a really tall autogyro (such as a "Dominator" style) however, so most autogyro designs simply try to get the thrustline as low as possible though still being slightly abo

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN

[GooberToo]

it cannot stall.

That's false. Most everything stated above, assumes zero wind conditions! Read on.

Wind, as I originally stated, is one of the most dangerous aspects of these crafts. If you fly with a tail wind, the effective lift is GREATLY reduced. Thusly, GREATLY increasing the chances of a single rotor stall. That means, ONE HALF OF THE ROTOR IS CREATING LIFT. THE OTHER HALF IS NOT! This means at best, you have little to no control and YOU CAN NOT AUTOROTATE! This also means, it's possible that you'll become inverted. This problem does happen. I could go on and on, but think about the facts and the physics involved.

GYROCOPTERS ARE DANGEROUS AND ARE ONLY FAIR WEATHER VEHICLES. Bad weather or moderate winds can drive these things from the air. This is why you don't see commercial vehicle using them. The reasoning is simple. It's not very often that you have ideal weather everytime you need to go somehwere by air.

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a complete idiot. I can not believe that you're attempting to offer such horribly incorrect information about these very dangerous vehicles as fact.

If someone reads this and dies from trying to fly one of these things, I hope their blood weighs heavily on your tiny, ignorant brain.

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN

[GooberToo]

Simple fact is, if that article told the whole story, the accident and associated death rates would not be anywhere near as high as they are. The things are not safe. They CAN be made safer and I spoke of that fact as well as the various directions and efforts helping to make them safe. Yet, the fact remains, as is commonly used, these are very unsafe!

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN

[Molina the Bofh]

>GYROCOPTERS ARE DANGEROUS

What does it matter ? The present mean of trasportation most people use are also dangerous.
In the US alone, 43,220 people died in car accidents in 2003. Every year, at leat 40 thousand people are killed this way.

Just for comparison, that's 10 times more than people who died in the WTC.

What does it mean ? That cars are dangerous and are only fair traffic vehicles ?

Everything has a risk involved. The goal is to optimize it. More efficiency with less deaths. Deaths are inevitable.

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN

[GooberToo]

I think the point is self explanitory. People are offering lies and invalid facts where are dangerous and requesting that mods mod down the factual dangers of these vehicles. On top of that, I'm taking the karma hit because of idiots that have no idea what they are talking about and mods are blindly following them.

It's annoying on many levels.

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN

[Anonymous Coward]

You are an idiot. Almost everything you stated is lie! Gyrocopters are a fool's flying machine. Thankfully, many are moved from the gene pool by their foolishness.

Hopefully the mods will mod you back down to troll, which is what you are!

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN

[GooberToo]

SOMEONE, PLEASE MOD THIS GUY DOWN. He's a troll. Look at how he starts his first sentence even.

Anyone that says gyrocopters can't stall, don't understand the physics involved. Period. hese things can and do fall out of the air because of a stalled rotor. Winds drive them from the air. Winds can flip these things. Basically, everythiing you're calling a troll would more accurately be called "FACTS!" You are greatly misleading people about the true dangers of these things.

Gyrocopters are only moderately safe in near ideal weather conditions. Basically, the experts and engineers that have been working for fix the long, long list of fatal flaws with gyrocopters call you an lying SOB.

You are a troll, plain and simple and some mods were silly enough to reward you for your ignorance, foolishness, and lies.

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN

[Molina the Bofh]

And my point is that, no matter what they do, there will always be a risk of death involved.

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN

[GooberToo]

You seem willing to ignore that the risks are NOT the same. That's the point. That's the facts.

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN

[LWATCDR]

A string tail wind can will also take out a fixed wing aircraft. That is how a microbusts cause air crashes.
If the tailwind reduces the airspeed of the aircraft to below the minimum control speed it will fall out of the air.

Autogyro can not stall! A stall is when the angle of attack on a wing is so high that the airflow seperates causing a sudden loose of life.
The rotors on an Autogyro can not have this happen. What you are talking about is unloading the rotor. And yes that can cause it to to stop rotating and a loose of life and contorl.
As to autogyros being "fair weather" aircraft. Yes they are but ALL light aircraft are fair weather aircraft. Even Airlines can can be taken out by bad enough weather.
Are gyrocopters unsafe? I would say not with proper pilot training. The FAA certifies them and a good number of people fly them.

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN

[GooberToo]

You seem to forget that a tail wind slows the rate of rotation on the rotor, thusly causing lift to be reduced. Therefore, changing the angle of attack greatly increases the risk of a single side of the rotor to stall. As a result, bad stuff....

You may want to learn more about the subject before you post again.

Once you can answer why helicopters have a maxium forward speed (hint, it relates to rotor lift), then you'll start to understand why you don't understand what you're talking about.

Sad to say, but aviation engineers completely disagree with your assesment.

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN

[GooberToo]

I'm constantly amazed that the sheer stupidity of not only people, but the mods and what they'll mod up and down.

I've been hammered to death for stating facts about gyrocopters, yet, thanks to a couple fo morons and idiotic mods that believed them, I've taken some serious karma bashing for being correct. Only on slashdot will someone that knows what they're talking about get slapped down. Worse, I was repeatedly tagged as a troll when trolling was not even involved. Hell, if anyone had half a brain here, they wouldn't be afraid of someone having a differing opinion which is factually supported. Yet, the mods were scared that someone might learn the facts about these things a listened to the idiots that posted here.

Thankfully, there were a handful of mods which were kind enough to mod intelligently to keep the truth from being completely hidden. Yet, I'm still somewhat angered at the fact that one of my more informative posts is currently rated -1 and some of the other posts which are 100% lies and full of incorrect information demanding that I be modded down, is currently modded 5. What bullshit.

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN

[LWATCDR]

Actually yes I do know why a helicopter has a maximum speed. The advancing blades tip speed will get close to sonic while the retreating tip will get close to zero. The advancing retreating tip speed problem is often solved with what is called a flapping hinge. There has been some work done with coax ridged rotors but that has seem to have fallen out of favor.
As far as I know there has never been a proven "stall " of a rotor system. The angle of attack is NOT realated to speed. The only reason that a fixed wing aircraft have a stall speed is that it is where the AOA needed to maintain level flight is large enough to trigger the air flow seperation . The stall speed is very dependant of things like g loading. The green arc on the air speed indicator is the maximum speed at you can fly at where you can not pull enough gs to break the plane. I.E. slow enough that your wing will stall before the wing breaks.
So yes I do what I am talking about. A rotor should NEVER reach a high enough AOA to stall. It may not generate enough lift to keep the craft in the air but should never go through a seperation stall.

770hp?

[Snorpus]

That's in the ballpark of a Nascar Nextel Cup stock car.

Even weighing 2600lbs (instead of 3500lbs), no way its going to get 20mpg on the highway.

Re:770hp?

[Glonoinha]

I got to thinking about it and odds are he is using that old fashioned HP = rpm * torque / 5250. If he has 8 engines spinning 21,000 rpm putting out 25 ft-lbs of torque apiece (25 ft-lbs isn't a lot of torque, btw) that is a combined 800 horsepower.

Horsepower numbers tend to get skewed at very high (and very low) RPM ranges. The other end of the curve is also very showing - I would be surprised to hear that even NASCAR engines put out more than 100 horsepower at idle (+/- 750rpm.)

Re:770hp?

[arkane1234]

I would be surprised to hear that even NASCAR engines put out more than 100 horsepower at idle (+/- 750rpm.)

Yes, but how many NASCAR engines do you know that run around a track at idle?

At idle, it's just high enough to keep the engine from lopping and falling on it's face :)

Re:770hp?

[Glonoinha]

Right, my point being that the 770HP number the flying car is an exaggeration because the horsepower we think of, 'peak real usable' horsepower, happens in the 2500RPM (pickup trucks) to 12,000RPM (race motorcycles) range. Not to mention the thing has 8 engines.

Then again the thing does have enough power to accelerate in a verticle climb (or else it wouldn't be able to VTOL) so I guess it isn't wimpy by any means. I looked at the pictures and it looks to have all the aerodynamic characteristics of a brick. A very pretty, glossy, metallic red colored brick, but a flying brick nonetheless. My first impressions were that it was originally designed by the same guys drawing them in the 50's and 60's - had all the same looks and lines from a design standpoint (was funny to see that I was right.)

If this guy thinks he can make these for $500k apiece, he needs to look at the Inventor sponsored Aviator here and here This thing is a one-off first run that costs a little more than a million dollars (parts, labor, design engineers) but I think would be a LOT cheaper in mass production and have a much wider appeal. A flying car sounds cool, but the penalty for losing control of a personal submarine is rarely more than your own demise (so the government restrictions would be much less stringent, and he could be quicker to market.) Given what boats cost today I think he could competitively mass market these or ones a little larger into that market. Given the $200M he has wrapped up into his flying cars, he could have built these things instead and created an underwater city where people could use them to good effect.

Vaporware?

[Ch_Omega]

I have been hearing about this particular car since late eighties, at least. I have an Arngren Electronics catalogue from 1990 that mentions the M400, and I have been hearing the exact same things about where they are in the process, etc. for the last ten years... Considering that it probably won't be available for sale in a long time yet, most people would be able to save up the cash to buy it when it's finally there. :)

Re:Vaporware?

[Anonymous Coward]

Was it even the "late" 80s?

Anyway, you're right: he's been saying the same exact thing for decades now. It's complete vapor. Moller is either a crank or an investment scammer.

The Moller Skycar will enter mass production around the same time that the Infinium Phantom does, I guarantee it.

Re:Vaporware?

[FLEB]

Hey, don't knock it. I hear it's even going to have a built-in entertainment system that plays Phantom games.

Compared to a hummer.

[Fuzzums]

EVERYTHING is eco-friendly ;)

My E0.02: Why does nobody increase the fuelprice in the states? Is't good for the economy. Is everybody REALLY wants to drive a car they'll pay for it.

For something that important, it's WAY too cheap.

Re:Compared to a hummer.

[EvanTaylor]

I guess you live in walking distance to your job, because most of America does not.

Re:Compared to a hummer.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does nobody increase the fuelprice in the states? Is't good for the economy. Is everybody REALLY wants to drive a car they'll pay for it.

You must be from somewhere with good public transportation.

In most cities in the US (apart from huge urban centers like New York, San Francisco, and whatever else you may have heard of), you either drive or you walk. There's no public transportation whatsoever.

Besides, high fuel costs is NOT good for the economy. Given the necessity of fuel for transporting goods, high fuel costs means an increase in price in just about anything you can imagine. That's generally not something you want to see.

Re:Compared to a hummer.

[Fuzzums]

30 minutes walking...

Hmm. then an other thought comes to my mind: scale down, decentralize. but that isn't practical...

Re:Compared to a hummer.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you mean "scale down, centralize."?

I can see the wire!

[DarthVeda]

"The wire is there because the insurance company required it" Right...

Re:I can see the wire!

[Peyna]

The wire isn't pulled taut, so it is unlikely it is supporting the weight of the vehicle. I imagine his investors would be very pissed if one of those expensive things got wrecked during a routine exercise.

Thats 20 GALLONS PER HOUR!

[Anonymous Coward]

Its 20 Gallons per hour not 20 miles to the gallon! Planes and boats measure fuel usage by the hour not by the mile. It uses far more fuel than the biggest SUV on the market.

Learn how to read!

Re:Thats 20 GALLONS PER HOUR!

[Sergeant Beavis]

Yep, 326MPH at 20GPH would be about 16.3MPG.

However, you can got 326MPH in any SUV. Big Plus IMO. I'm also curious how much you could improve efficiency if you were to fly at slower speeds.

That still doesn't get around the concept's flaws

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I'm surprised that the group that rips on Infinium Labs for being the vapor that they are doesn't rip on Moller for being vapor far longer than Phantom Console.

Skycar, IMO, is a scam. Yes, they have two "test flight" pictures, might be rigged or faked.

Don't count on 326 MPG on 30MPG. Remember, these are vapor numbers on a flying vehicle with barely any wings at all. If it's too good to be believed...

Hurrah! "The Future" is officially 1/3 here...

[LiSrt]

...just fembots and laser pistols to go now.

Comming soon to a driveway near you.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure. That and the economical power of the fusion reactor. Just a few years away. Any day now. It could happen. Like they havent been promising both for 50 years.... Im not holding my breath.

Yes.. but

[Viceice]

all we need is for soem nuts to decide to pack 1 full of explosives and fly it into a building.

I'd expect instead of building highways, all the money will be going to building shielding for buildings.

Re:Yes.. but

[17028]

As opposed to using a normal Cessna that costs less and can carry more?

now thats intresting

[P0lyh34)]

It gets better fuel milage than my dodge, and trumps its topspeed (177mph compared to 365mph)... where the hell do i sign up?

More econimical, but a lot less practical too

[sunking2]

Let's see this thing tow a boat, fit 6 people and 2 dogs, some 2x4s from the Depot, or hell, even a weeks worth of groceries in it.

Not that I'm defending 15mph vehicles, but lets compare apples. At least compare it to a Viper or something. Of course, the difference there is that a Viper will even get the geeks here laid, this thing won't.

Sport Pilots License

[Sergeant Beavis]

While I find the M400 very interesting, I think the future of aviation will be affected to a much greater degree by the proposed regulations for pilot licensing.

The FAA has proposed new rule for what will be called a Sport Pilots License. The rules should be approved this summer and it will make it much easier for anyone to become a pilot. For one, you won't have to take an expensive physical any longer.

However, there are a lot of restrictions on someone with an SPL. You can't fly an aircraft that has a gross takeoff weight higher than 1232lbs. You can only fly under Visual Flight Rules (VFR) conditions and you cannot fly any faster than 132MPH.

Because flight training takes place in the less expensive Light Sport Aircraft class (LSA) flight training should be less expensive. Also, a prospective SPL student only needs to fly 20 hours to get their license. Normally, you have to fly at least 40 hours.

Personally, I can't wait.

If you want to learn more about it, goto www.sportpilot.org

Re:Sport Pilots License

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, expensive physical? The physical for my commercial drivers license is $75.00...the physical for my FAA Medical Certficate Third Class is $75.00. As far as flight training goes, I think the average is more like 65 hours for a Private Pilot rating, the 40 hour is the minimum required. I do think Sport Pilot is a great idea though not for the reasons you cite.

Re:Sport Pilots License

[Sergeant Beavis]

You are correct, 40 is the minimum flight hours required. It can be more if the instructor doesn't thing you are ready.

Some people think $75 is real money ;)

What's the mileage when flying?

[risutora]

fuel consumption of 20 miles to the gallon on the road Yeah, right. Who's gonna drive this thing around on the ground?

Sorry - Bad link

[JohnGlenn]

http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/aircraft/private/aero car/info/info.htm

Who Friggin' cares???

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not like anyone on slashdot will EVER be able to afford one these ..

Moller has had some trouble with the SEC

[Gorgonzola]

Read all about it here

Re:Moller needs to just give it up

[Logopop]

Ditto. But we've been through all this on /. before. Here is what I wrote around December 7. last year:

"
You're right - nothing new here. However, I beg to diagree re. the Moller concepts. Fixed wings allow for establishing a glidepath and (semi) controlled emergency landings in the event of an engine failure. Helicopters have a similar way of recovering using autorotation and fact that the main rotor has enough mass to allow for controlled landings without power. If the Moller skycar looses a single engine during flight, the vehicle instantly becomes unstable and will drop. It does not have enough wing area to maintain lift, neither does the failed engine have enough rotor mass to be used for autorotation. The only safety device offered is a parashute. Even if mechanically launced, I seriously doubt that the FAA will certify such a thing. It's a neat dream, but I think that investors should spend some money on some professional engineering technology assessment before putting money into that project (even if it flies already).

-Kris

http://eternalbank.com
"

Re:More economical probably only on long distances

[Anonymous Coward]

The specs on the M400 say it seats 4 people. Apparently the article has a picture of the M200x, a 2 seater.

Economical depends on use.

[Shivetya]

That hummer can haul 6 people, maybe more, so it could be very good for commuting compared to a Prius, which by the way rarely if ever gets its advertised mileage.

When you factor in the premium charge most hybrids have they cost you more in the long run than a similarly sized car with a regular engine. Right now they are more marketing gimmic.

As for flying cars / widgets. With the propensity for local politicians to use small planes and airports as sources of fear I doubt these would get very far. You probably could not get permission to go near most metropolitan areas at the altitudes you need.

Re:Economical depends on use.

[winwar]

First, the Prius can haul at least 4 people, maybe more. Granted, not 6, but that's mostly irrelevant. Most vehicles used for commuting only carry one person.
Second, I don't know where you get the idea that it "rarely" gets its advertised mileage, sure SOME or even MANY people may not get the EPA mileage but that does not equate to rarely.
Third, even if we assume really bad mileage, 30 plus mpg is still over twice what a Hummer gets.
Fourth, what premium? Compare the prius to a camry (both midsize cars), they seem to cost about the same. They sure as heck don't cost as much in the long run when you factor in operating costs and I believe there is a tax rebate available for the Prius. And in any case, the Prius costs a lot less than a Hummer or many other SUV's....

The inventor died in a fixed-wing plane crash

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet he flew autogyros all his life. Interesting, huh?

Re:The inventor died in a fixed-wing plane crash

[GooberToo]

No one said that there were not risks associated with GA. Simple fact is, GA fixed wing planes are realiably safe. Just the same, gyrocopters are not.

I must say, it's afact that I didn't know and yes, I do find it to be interesting.

3 years from launch for the past 25+ years

[geekotourist]

Moller is a Davis (California) institution. The tourguides mentioned him and his "almost ready for launch car" when I was touring UCDavis to choose a school. And when I graduated. And when I visit my friends there. And when my now baby niece starts touring potential universities: I'm sure they'll still talk about how he's almost there.

Re:3 years from launch for the past 25+ years

[TheLink]

Looks like he might be closer than the hot fusion people tho :).

factual error

[Preposterous Coward]

A "stall" does not mean an engine-out event, it means a fixed wing aircraft is travelling too slowly for the wings to produce lift.

No. This is just wrong. A stall does not mean a fixed-wing aircraft is traveling too slowly. Stalls occur when the wing exceeds the critical angle of attack, at which time laminar flow across the wing is no longer maintained and thus lift is lost.

Although this *can* happen when the plane is being flown very slowly (== at high angle of attack), low speed is *not* a necessary condition for a stall.

/licensed private pilot

Re:factual error

[GooberToo]

This is 100% accurate statement.

You can stall a plane at any speed.

whoa..

[mantera]

Imagine the sky squirming with vehicles going at 365mph.. How safe can this be considering all the trouble we're having on the ground already despite our slow cars and their constrained paths.

NOT more economical

[Tablizer]

when you factor in insurance. And, a Beowulf cluster of flying Al Quida members gives me the jeebies.

Gasoline or jet feul?

[bmantz65]

I didn't see anything mentioned about whether this flying car takes regular gas or jet fuel.

Re:Gasoline or jet feul?

[Rosonowski]

As I understand it, Jet feul is just refined kerosene. I could be wrong, this is just something I overheard.

My experience

[Preposterous Coward]

The four-seat Cessna 172 Syhawks that I learned to fly in cruise at about 110 knots and consume about 8.6 gph under typical atmospheric conditions at the flight levels used for relatively short distances. That's 14-15 mpg, though to be fair that doesn't include the additional fuel required for runup, taxi, and climbout, nor account for headwinds, which could slow you down quite a bit. OTOH, the straight-line distance between two points may well be less than the shortest distance by road, which is a factor to consider when comparing it with a car.

The two-seat Diamond DA-20 I'm planning to get checked out in shortly is quite a bit more efficient. I believe its cruise speed is about 125 knots, and cruise fuel consumption is about 6 gph. So that's 24 mpg. Not bad at all...

One unfortunate thing about avgas is that it's still low-lead rather than totally unleaded.

More economical?

[silverhalide]

I can understand distaste for SUVs because of the people that drive them, but this comparison is simply stupid. First of all, there is no data backing up the 20MPG claim for this thing. Second, the emissions on this thing are probably horrible as I seriously doubt they implement all of the emissions controls that modern SUVs and other vehicles use in the interest of weight. I doubt they put a catalytic converter on there, for example. Wankel engines are notoriously difficult to have clean emissions, one of the reasons they stopped importing the Mazda RX-7 until recently.

With that said, I'd still love to have one!

WHATS IS THE COST OF YOUR LIFE?

[NSupremo]

we have to get off the RETARDED kick of claiming 'high cost' for technologies

there are lots of old people who need organ transplants. they could live longer - if they had the money... WOW WHAT A NICE WORLD WANT TO KEEP US LIVING IN

We live in a stupid little country (usa) because we use fossil fuels. We have EVERY alternative NOW.

Your simple mind believes a lie.

yes it is

[zogger]

if you are in a flying craft, you want range as well as power. Higher MPG gives you longer range. Even if you can afford it and the fuel is there, be a real PITA to have to land every 50 miles and fill up again.

If it was mine, I'd want as long a range as possible, sacrafice some of the speed instead. It could go 100 MPH slower that what they are claiming it's speed is going to be, but that still leaves it plenty fast compared to tooling down the highway in your normal ride.

Still neat, hope he finally gets it working enough so it can be produced, then rich guys buy enough of them to get the prices down. Maybe joe average won't be able to afford one by himself, but like planes are owned now, a few guys chip in and buy them. That's real common now with personal aircraft.

Re:yes it is

[iminplaya]

Knowing how "well" most people drive, do we really want this?. Air rage is one thing for a passenger, but quite another if the pilot suffers from it. These guys would try to arm it like a P-51. It would be Urban Fly-boy. As these thing fall out of the sky, the homeless could pick up the pieces to sell to the recycling centers. :) Uh oh, somebody's going to mod me as a troll for making fun of the homeless. I'm an equal opportunity offender. "If I had the money, I would offend everybody." - Can't remember who said that. Some movie producer, I believe, when asked if his movie would offend some people.

Re:That still doesn't get around the concept's fla

[GooberToo]

I agree. Considering he has what, six or eight engines running, 30mpg sounds pretty impossible. Besides, most aviation vehicles are measured in gallons per hour and not mile per gallon because, based on wind, a gph rating would be all over the place. A gph rating is going to be fairly static.

vapor

[austad]

I remember a Popular Mechanics issue in the mid-80's that touted this thing as being out within the next year. They had a full article on it, and they even had an ad in the back where you could put $5000 down payment to get one of the first ones. So where are those people's money now?

I think this guy is financing the whole project with his profits from the Supertrapp muffler company, apparently he owns it. In any case, it's been like 20 years since that first article came out, and still no skycar.

Moller - 30 years of vaporware - read his brochure

[Animats]

Moller has been hyping his flying cars for a long time. We just put his 1974 brochure on line. Back then, it was three months from flight test, and production was scheduled for the end of 1976. Yes, 1976.

More recently, he's been in trouble with the SEC for selling $5.1 million in unregistered securities over the Internet. As the SEC's formal complaint puts it, "As of late 2002, MI's approximately 40 years' of development has resulted in a prototype Skycar capable of hovering about fifteen feet above the ground." That seems to say it all.

Moller, the ultimate scam artist

[Teahouse]

He's been pulling in money from rich/stupid investors for 30+ years now. The M400 gets dragged out to just about every tech show in the hopes of pulling in more money. The fact is, he is no further now than he was 20 years ago when he had a saucer that could hover 20 feet off the ground. The M400 was supposed to be operational n 2001! Then, it was 2002, then 03, then 04, and now it's 05. Great LOOKING car, but it is the ultimate vaporware scam.

I hope the guy succeeds some day, but he'll have to do it with someone else's money, because I would NEVER invest in a guy with a track record as shaky as his.

Re:That still doesn't get around the concept's fla

[Lord_Dweomer]

My favorite part of their website is the other things they push on their main page. I would have copied the text, but its in an animated gif which you can view here.

Yup, I feel much safer about investing in Moller now.

FUD

[azav]

Guys, this is just FUD. I saw the car yesterday and to quote Monty Python, "It's only a model." All the web site articles yesterday about the Moller is what they plan or hope will happen. Marketing material. Not fact.

Unsafe At Any Altitude

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't wait for the new Nader book "Unsafe At Any Altitude".

Sky Car Silliness

[artgecco]

Moller is based in Davis near where I live. He invented the "Supertrap" motorcycle muffler so he must not be a total idiot. But EIGHT rotary engines? Know how hard it is to keep ONE airplane engine running, much less EIGHT?

Has anyone ever seen this "aircraft" actually flying? Yet over years and years and years somehow Moller keeps getting the publicity. The general public's ignorance about aviation is astounding.

BTW, the "Skycar" is NOT a gyrocopter- gyrocopters may or may not be dangerous but they certainly do fly- unlike the "Skycar".

YOBS
"Art"

Re:Sky Car Silliness

[nr]

gyrocopters may or may not be dangerous but they certainly do fly - unlike the "Skycar".

Okey, you implies Mollers Skycar is a fad and does not fly at all, can you please tell me what you see on this picture then.

Re:Sky Car Silliness

[sashang]

It looks like Apocalypse about to unleash a super blast of mega death on the unsuspecting human scum of the earth and wastify them.

hummer limo

[slothman32]

I recently saw a hummer limo. I wonder what the MPG of that was.

365 MPH

[Zareste]

So once we're finished digging them out of hillsides and buildings, we'll have a Hell of a transportation system.

MOD PARENT UP

[kmmatthews]

Holy crap, Moller is a huge fraud according to the SEC...

Aircraft Efficiency

[Anonymous Coward]

You are not aware, I take it, that many "fucking airplanes" can attain fuel economy better than many cars?

http://www.europa-aircraft.com/

WTC Re:MPG not important

[snilloc]

Realisticlly, the WTC Towers also withstood airliner impact - it was the burning jet fuel that knocked them down.

Vaporhardware

[Kell Bengal]

I've been reading about the M400 since it appeared in Popular Mechanics in 1991. I think I'll enjoy the fuel savings while my grandkids play Duke Forever in the backseat and a Comanche zips past in the skylane next to me... -Kell

Yesterday I bought gas for more then $2 a gallon

[beforewisdom]

Yesterday, I bought gas for more then $2 a gallon for the first time in my life ( I'm in the North East corridor of the USA ). I cost me almost $25 to gas up my Civic. It must be really nasty for minivan and SUV drivers. Steve

Dangerous? Hardly

[MBraynard]

The article called these vehicles dangerous but they have to be much less dangerous than cars. With a car error, you can slam into another car or into a tree or pedestrian. When this flying vehicle has a problem, it can disable it's engines, release a parachute, and let you sink gracefully to the ground, deploying a cushion beneath you before impact.

Re:Dangerous? Hardly

[Anhaedra]

And if the systems fail you have a 3000 pound chunk of metal rocketing toward the ground.

Cite some sources!

[Anonymous Coward]

> Everything I stated about gyrocopters is 100% factual.

Then point us to some information.

As it is, you're not giving anyone anything to go on beyond "trust me!" A "trust me!" just isn't good enough online.

A "trust me!" delivered in a continuing barrage of posts without a single corroborating piece of evidence is often a crackpot warning sign.

I'm not saying you are a crackpot - indeed, you're probably not. But you'll receive a healthy dose of skepticism until you dig up reputable evidence that supports your argument.

Deceptive picture - there's a crane

[Animats]

What you're seeing is a small version of this picture. Note the overhead tether leading up and to the right. In the previous picture, you can see the large crane holding up the Skycar.

In the words of the SEC complaint filed with the U.S. District Court, "As of late 2002, MI's approximately 40 years of development has resulted in a prototype Skycar capable of hovering about fifteen feet above the ground."

Poor header, old, tired story

[Anonymous Coward]

Saying a non-existent vehicle has better gas mileage than a real vehicle is very poor.

Moller has been pitching the greatness of his flying car for years and it's in eternal delay and reengineering mode. My guess is he's low on funds again so he's doing a roadshow. The only thing that is amazing about this, is that he keeps getting funded!

This guy is 1 step ahead...

[sinjayde]

This guy already has a flying car

MPG in the air?

[Anonymous Coward]

Even the submitter didn't read his own submission
...with a fuel consumption of 20 miles to the gallon on the road...

Who cares what MPG it gets on the road? What mileage does it get in the air?!

Just fix the Traffic jams

[Ozric]

If you fix that you fix the fuel problems . . . We wast more gas sitting still then we do driving.

m^2 makes perfect sense

[adb]

That's the cross-sectional area of a cylindrical gas tank sufficient for you to drive one meter on a one-meter-high load of gas.

HTH.

Re: I'd like to see a lot gyrocopters in the sky..

[cujo_1111]

Call the movie by its real name of 'Mad Max' please.

Problem Solved: Play AC/DC at 80 dba cause...

[NarrMaster]

Rock and Roll ain't noise pollution!

yeah, if it can haul a boat to the lake for me

[Anonymous Coward]

then it makes sense to compare the mpg

ambulances

[jagnon]

I think these aircars would be great for use as ambulances, or by the police.. how about a much larger version for use by fire departments? I live in NYC and the traffic that ambulances must weave through to get to their destinations is incredible.. one of these would be excellent..

20 mpg is not the mileage of all SUVs

[alexq]

There are quite a few SUVs that get better mileage than this - and many sports cars and other types of vehicles that get much worse mileage.

for example, the Toyota RAV4 (SUV):
spec page - click MPG tab

The lowest highway rating (automatic transmission and 4wd) is 26, the highest is 30 (manual transmission, 2wd). The lowest street mileage is still 21mpg.

(i'm sorry, it just really bothers me how misinformed people seem to be when it comes to mileage and SUVs)

Fixed wing aircraft got much safer since 1936

[Anonymous Coward]

And autogyros didn't.

That may NOT be so...

[Eternauta3k]

I'm not really looking forward to the time where people who run out of gas/petrol simply fall out of the sky to their deaths and those on the ground.

Of course, you'd have to assume you also lose the wings
(stopping the engine turns planes into gliders, not rocks)