Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Flying Car More Economical Than SUV

Posted by michael on from the runs-on-vapor dept.

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."

79 of 412 comments (clear)

  1. MPG not important by jepaton · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

    1. Re:MPG not important by bwalling · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:MPG not important by SEWilco · · Score: 3, Informative
      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.

    3. Re:MPG not important by ralfg33k · · Score: 3, Funny

      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.

    4. Re:MPG not important by Breakfast+Cereal · · Score: 2, Insightful
      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.

    5. Re:MPG not important by UniverseIsADoughnut · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    6. Re:MPG not important by UniverseIsADoughnut · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    7. Re:MPG not important by igny · · Score: 2, Funny
      20 miles to the gallon on the road.

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

      --
      In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. - Yogi Berra
  2. That may be so... by acehole · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

    --
    Be you Admins? nay, we are but lusers!
    1. Re:That may be so... by nkh · · Score: 5, Funny

      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?

    2. Re:That may be so... by M1FCJ · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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.

    3. Re:That may be so... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > 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.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    4. Re:That may be so... by buzzcutbuddha · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:That may be so... by dildatron · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --


      If you had nuts on your chin, would they be chin nuts?
    6. Re:That may be so... by Catbeller · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

    7. Re:That may be so... by GooberToo · · Score: 3, Informative

      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!

    8. Re:That may be so... by GooberToo · · Score: 2, Informative

      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!

    9. Re:That may be so... by GooberToo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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!!!!

    10. Re:That may be so... by GooberToo · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    11. Re:That may be so... by Technician · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
    12. Re:That may be so... by jafiwam · · Score: 2, Informative

      With a real link this time.

    13. Re:That may be so... by spiritgreywolf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Never have a philosophy which supports a lack of courage
    14. Re:That may be so... by phliar · · Score: 2, Informative
      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?

      --
      Unlimited growth == Cancer.
    15. Re:That may be so... by GooberToo · · Score: 2, Informative

      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!

    16. Re:That may be so... by VxSote · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

    17. Re:That may be so... by VxSote · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

  3. Eco-friendly??? by Kwelstr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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!!!

    --


    ~~~Please pass the salt, I hate unsalted MD5s :-/
  4. I love high gas prices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  5. And for the non-americans in here by Mr.+Marabou+Man · · Score: 5, Interesting


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

    1. Re:And for the non-americans in here by ahillen · · Score: 3, Informative

      Or like we say over here:

      11.7607292 liters / (100 kilometer) :)

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

    2. Re:And for the non-americans in here by Hektor_Troy · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

      --
      We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
    3. Re:And for the non-americans in here by carlislematthew · · Score: 2, Funny
      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.

  6. Dawn of the age of the understicker... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Funny
    IF YOU CAN READ THIS
    I'm about to land on you
    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    1. Re:Dawn of the age of the understicker... by MouseR · · Score: 2, Funny

      "I can't brake for nobody"

    2. Re:Dawn of the age of the understicker... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      "I break on impact" :(

  7. Economic Impact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  8. So what? by divine_13 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  9. Vapor by Lord+Kano · · Score: 3, Informative

    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

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    1. Re:Vapor by in7ane · · Score: 3, Informative

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

  10. Its astonishing by Timesprout · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
    What truth?
    There is no dupe
    1. Re:Its astonishing by adam+mcmaster · · Score: 2, Insightful
      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.

    2. Re:Its astonishing by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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?

      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
    3. Re:Its astonishing by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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...

      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
    4. Re:Its astonishing by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  11. video link by mm0mm · · Score: 4, Informative
    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.

    1. Re:video link by Slashamatic · · Score: 2, Informative

      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".

  12. The future is later by BalloonMan · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  13. CopyCat. by JohnGlenn · · Score: 2, Informative

    He's about 50 years too late!

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

  14. Why compromise... by TooMuchEspressoGuy · · Score: 2, Funny
    ...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.

    --
    Many Bothans died to bring you this sig.
  15. Obviously... by Epistax · · Score: 4, Funny

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

  16. Of course it's more economical by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:Of course it's more economical by argent · · Score: 2

      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".

  17. Re:where this car fails miserably by Lispy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  18. Plaguarism by JoeyLemur · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

  19. The point isn't the practicality of flying cars by Jonas+the+Bold · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    --
    Everything seemed to be going so nice
    'till the end of all beings punched right through the ice
    1. Re:The point isn't the practicality of flying cars by jcam2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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 ..

    2. Re:The point isn't the practicality of flying cars by tommck · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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..

      --
      ---- It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.
    3. Re:The point isn't the practicality of flying cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "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...

  20. Who cares about fuel economy? by Bender+Unit+22 · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  21. Place your orders here by logic-gate · · Score: 2, Informative
    Buy one here

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

  22. And for Simpsons fans by HeghmoH · · Score: 2, Funny

    20 miles/gallon = 537,600 rods/hogshead

    --
    Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
  23. WTF? by Cthefuture · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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)

    --
    The ratio of people to cake is too big
    1. Re:WTF? by Reverberant · · Score: 5, Informative
      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.

  24. 65 decibels? by LeBlanc_Joey · · Score: 3, Informative
    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
    --

    Everything in moderation, even moderation.

    No, especially moderation.

  25. Reality Check by xyote · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:Reality Check by Sergeant+Beavis · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

      --
      There is nothing inherently safe about liberty. That's why so many people died protecting it.
  26. MOD PARENT DOWN by localroger · · Score: 4, Informative
    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.

    --
    Brackets contain world's first nanosig, highly magnified:[.]
    1. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN by The+Evil+Couch · · Score: 4, Informative
      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

      --
      The World's Worst Webcomic!
    2. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN by GooberToo · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

  27. Re:Skycar will never happen. by Catbeller · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  28. Vaporware? by Ch_Omega · · Score: 2, Informative

    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. :)

  29. That still doesn't get around the concept's flaws by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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...

  30. Yes.. but by Viceice · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    Sometimes I wish I was a plumber, then I'd know how to deal with other people's shit.
    1. Re:Yes.. but by 17028 · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

  31. Sport Pilots License by Sergeant+Beavis · · Score: 3, Interesting
    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

    --
    There is nothing inherently safe about liberty. That's why so many people died protecting it.
  32. What's the mileage when flying? by risutora · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

  33. Moller has had some trouble with the SEC by Gorgonzola · · Score: 3, Informative

    Read all about it here

    --
    -- Spelling and grammar errors tend to be a sign of erroneous thinking.
  34. yes it is by zogger · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  35. Re:That still doesn't get around the concept's fla by GooberToo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.