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

[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

[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.

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!!!

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.

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.

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.

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

[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: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.

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?

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.

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

[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: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.

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: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.

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?

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...

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?

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...

[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:Yes.. but

[17028]

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

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: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.

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.