Slashdot Mirror
Flying Cars Ready To Take Off
Ant writes "CBS News has an article, images, and a free streaming video clip of Elwood (Woody) Norris' invention of a working flying machine, AirScooter. He asked one of his test pilots to demonstrate it for 60 Minutes on a hilltop outside San Diego, California. It can fly for 2 hours at 55 mph, and go up to 10,000 feet above sea level. This week, he will receive America's top prize for invention. It's called the Lemelson-MIT award -- a half-million dollar cash prize to honor his life's work, which includes a brand new personal flying machine.
Woody Norris' and others' inventions are for NASA's 'The Highway in the Sky.' It is a computer system designed to let millions of people fly whenever they please, and take off and land from wherever they please, in their very own vehicles."
I saw this on 60 Minutes last night, it was pretty interesting.
Should say:-
Flying cars to be made available in fifteen years time
This is just a sickening attempt to get our hopes up.
Moller Skycar Info.
More
Each person having their own flying machine....can you imagine the waste of fossil fuels and danger involved? It's bad enough with cars!!
Homeland Security will have a fit!
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
I'm still waiting for my hoverboard...
Fooget Flyin Cars!
Im fairly sure these device wont be valid road going vehicals for a while atleast. .
I am wonder (fairly sure they will)if they will need to introduce a new license scheme for them and a whole new set of transit laws
The potential problems that machines like this could cause is immense if this is not as tightly regulated as standerd aircraft not to mention the cross with auto mobiles
However if these things are avaliable for 50k from people like Mr Morris then I will definantly be rather tempted to get when if i ever have money like that laying around(Lets hope some unknown rich relative dies).
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
I'm reminded that we were romised flying cars and video phones in the 21st Century every time I introduce a new person to video chat.
wonder if it looks like that hover car on the Simpsons last night... hmm...
If this thing is "real", we're going to need 15 years to get things straightened out so people aren't flying drunk, teenagers aren't racing their air scooters in public air corridors, and Starbucks has a chance to start opening outlets at 10,000 feet.
Yeah? Well I think you're overrated too.
So, will you get a speeding ticket flying 55mph on a 35mph road if you don't touch the ground?
Buy one now before the air commute becomes congested as well.
So long and thanks for all the fish . . . !!!
Yeah, i'll sign up with my $50k today. Oh wait... You mean not *all* of the technology to do it is in place? I'm sure that's just a minor oversight and won't matter a jot. $50 grand cheque coming up.
Deleted
(1) the oil companies and car manufacturers like things the way they are.
(2) You need a PILOT'S LICENSE, not just a driver's license, to fly one of these things.
Norris says you won't need a pilot's license if you fly it under 400 feet in non-restricted air space. And he's going to sell it for $50,000.
But the car will fly to 10k feet right and it will sell for $50k right? That means that a lot of idiots will be flying one of these things and they will have the ability to go over the 400 foot limit.
Looks like a serious issue.
How many equivalent 'passenger miles per gallon' will these get versus a car? While the "as a crow flies" distance may be shorter than driving, I can't imagine that the fuel usage is less than or 2x a car.
With gas refining capacity already strained, personal flying cars would be like taking one of the worst effects of SUV usage and mulplying that effect again.
I can't wait for the first accident report to come in because someone forget to fill it up...
I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
Damn...and I thought people were finally getting the idea that we have to conserve energy. Imagine how much oil/jet fuel that flying car would go through? It has four sets of rotary engines! I'd much rather see people driving an electric vehicle like this Reva NXG that can go 200km after a 6 hour charge.
Yeah, I know. If the guy was really so smart he should have invented a decent web server!
....can it fold up into a briefcase after you land at work?
Check out this as a good starting point;
http://www.amazing1.com/grav.htm
There's some good stuff out there, and some people have gotten decent lift results with ion containment approaches.
..don't panic
Did you read the article? Stay under 400 feet in non-restricted airspace = no pilots license
Ever feel like you are driving the getaway car?
He does a good job at getting the press attention every year or so yet no real advances are made. the Moller skycar is still the same point it was 5 years ago. he still has not flown it (tied to a crane is not flying it) or anything else other than his PR stunt shows.
Lots of promises are made but nothing solid or real is ever shown or demonstrated, it always feels like the snake oil or perpetual energy people. Look at what I did! no you cant see how it works or it actually work in real tests.
how about he untether it and fly it across the country? Experimental aircraft licensing is really easy to get.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Hey, timothy, get your act together! April 1st was two weeks ago!
Sheesh... Flying cars... As if...
+1 Insightful, -1 Troll. What can I say, I'm an Insightful Troll.
... welcome our new, Skynet(r) Compliant Overlords!
The CBS news article has images and a video clip of Paul Moller's skycar NOT the airscooter, and this seems more to be a small aeroplane not a flying car in any sense of the term. I want my flying cars to look like cars (preferably a delorean) which take off akin to that in Back to the future II (vertically) like a harrier jumpjet, propellars are for planes!!
:)
I like the idea that flying cars might soon be a reality because software has been written to keep track of everyones self made vehicles. I have just finished writting a system to keep track of timetravellers. Name, address, year travelled back or forward to and what event they hope to see. I can only see CBS news declaring that time travel is now taking off too!
Cached version.
May Peace Prevail On Earth
Hover technology has been around for over a decade. The basic principle was used for the hoverboards in Back To the Future, but unforunately the hoverboards were not made avaialable because of safety concerns.
But still - The technology is there. It shouldn't require a lot of extra work to have these hovering much higher. I'm surprised there isn't more inniovation in this area. I suspect that the rubber manufacturers have been suppressing the technology, because they know it will put an end to their business.
"Look how quickly it stops, hovers, sideways, sideways, straight down," Norris tells Simon.
From TFA
"...But if we sold say a couple thousand, $50,000 a piece, that's a billion dollars."
If that's how this guy does math, I think I'll wait for some other manufacturer to create these things before I buy...
Schrodinger's cat is either dead or really pissed off...
Why'd they give him an award for that? It's a virtual copy of the Hiller XH-44 invented in 1944...that's sixty years ago. http://www.hiller.org/hillerXH44.shtml Someone needs to get a clue.
Makes borders somewhat obsolete...
Everybody assumes that everybody will start flying these things as soon as they will hit the market. That's scary.
The only way I see these things being actually safe for use is if the license can only be gotten through intensive training, akin to a private pilot certificate. Pilot training is expensive, but maybe it'll come down in price as methods of effective mass teaching are invented.
I know of a place where you can sit in one Starbucks and look out the window across the street at guess what... Another Starbucks!
Just curious, this Starbucks doesn't contain remarkably similar looking people to the one you are currently in?
I'm just looking for a webserver that can withstand 50 minutes of Slashdotting!
Buy a piece of land. And wait.
"Waste not one watt!" - CZ
As though idiots on cell phones weren't bad enough on the ground...
It sounds like a good alternative for public transportation. You wouldn't want some 16-year-old zit-faced teenager flying you around in a helicopter, would you?
One man's Funny is another man's Offtopic.
Not 55 MPH, according to the page http://www.airscooter.com/pages/airscooter_main.ht m
That equates to about 63 MPH.
Sounds like someone rewrote a Mechanics Illustrated
article from the late 40's or early 50's.
Will FBI let people fly those freely around ?
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
what happens when you run out of gas at 2500 feet?
forty-two
About this "car".
It's a one seater.
The driver/pilot position is open to the elements.
It has no cargo carrying capacity (as far as I could tell.)
Max speed 55mph, 2 hours of flight per tank.
Skids only (no wheels), so you can't park it in a ramp/underground garage, so can't fly it to the city...
Cool toy? H3ll yeah. If I ever win the lottery (unlikely, as I don't play it) I'll be all over one of these. Replacement for a car? Bah.
Having looked at the thing I recommend the following:
"AirScooter, the Segway of the air!"
Deleted
Woody Norris' company invented a device to aim sound, something like a laser does light. There was a good article in the NY Times about it a couple years back. This Popular Science article appears to cover it as well. http://www.popsci.com/popsci/bown/article/0,16106, 388134,00.html
does it fold up into a briefcase? Otherwise, I'm not interested.
hack a day
You can already fly ultralights under 400 feet with no license.
I think a bigger problem would be now runnign out of gas means crashing instead of just blocking a lane of traffic.
I can see it now.
"75 dead as hover car runs out of gas and crashes 400 feet into local school."
And we thought suburban sprawl was bad before.
Now people will move farther and farther away from civilization to waste their weekdays in traffic on the skyway and waste their weekends looking for their lost hover car on the tarmac at Wal-Mart.
Looking at the AirScooter video, and at thinking about the motorcycle handle and the lack of foot pedals, how does the pilot correct for uncommanded roll, as might occur in turbulence, or thermals, encountering wake turbulence, ...?
"'You get in this vehicle, there's no vibration, takes you up and what's most exciting is your kind of being lifted up from below [...]'"
And:
"But he thought he'd ask anyways."
Gotta love that rigorous editing at CBS. I wasn't sure whether or not I had left Slashdot until I double-checked the address bar. Then I had to check again to make sure I hadn't wandered into a Limp Bizkit forum somewhere.
Yes, because "somewhere between 10 and 15 years" (from TFA) means they're ready to take off =]
9/11=no flying cars
you think gas is high NOW?????
The above comment relates to the vehicle they showed on 60 minutes last night, which is oddly not the same as the one mentioned in the ./ story links.
My bad.
I hope they're learning from the debacle with the Osprey. Those Tilt Rotors were deadly even to experienced Jet/Helocopter pilots. They want to sell this to the general public??? I hope it has one hell of an autopilot.
Anyone remember seeing this headline a hundred times since the 70's in magazines like PopMech and PopSci?
I won't believe it until the parking garages start popping up and in-flight refueling becomes self-service.
...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
OK. First thing's these things are gonna cost way more than 50k ... at least at first. Then, OF COURSE, there are gonna be new laws. Right.
Now, this is what we call a "paper release" in the hardware world. And this is hardware. You gotta produce this thing, right? Where's the assembly lines for this vehicle?
Last, and prolly least :) this dude gets an award for just thinking of an idea (and building prototypes), but ford gets _what_ for refining and streamlining the assembly line.
lbnn
"Well, I've done the math. I think it's a modest number if you could sell a couple thousand, when you look at snowmobiles and quads and those things -- not cars," says Norris. "That's a big market. But if we sold say a couple thousand, $50,000 a piece, that's a billion dollars." [emphasis added]
2*10^3 * 5*10^4 = 10*10^7 = 100,000,000 != a billion
And this guy, Woody Norris, is the chief inventor? "Self-taught"?
I'd rather ride the bus. Or a flying car created by Woody from Cheers.
The second I saw it, it reminded me of Slipstream 5000, a futuristic 3D racing game. Sadly, I could not find better screenshots than these; as a matter of fact, I couldn't find any other for this 10 year old game. Does anyone know about better screenshots?
The grass is always greener on the other side of the light cone.
This is not a flying car. It's just another plane!
A small plane, but still just a plane.
There has to be another way of beating gravity than blowing air over a wing shaped objects at high speed.
------- Look mum! I have posted another Slashdot comment! --------
...does it fold up into a briefcase when I get to work?
When was the first accident report when someone forgot to fill up their car? How about when they forgot to fill up their plane? These flying devices are also designed to be a lot safer than cars and planes by having multiple redundant engines and multiple safety contingencies. After all the thought that has gone into designing various flying cars, it would be silly if they didn't design one that safely floated to the ground when out of fuel.
Patent it now
"Waste not one watt!" - CZ
When Slashdot is scooped by 60 Minutes, you know it's jumped the shark.
I'd be particularly interested to see: braking distance, slalom performance, skidpad G's, fuel economy, crashworthiness.
Did anybody see the Simpson's last night? In the future, Homer had a beater flying car. It was hilarious.
$50,000 ??? Bullshit - not a chance, wouldn't trust these asshats if they are banding around figures like that. More like $500,000
Where does it say it is a rotary engine ?
It _does_ say lots about four-stroke and pistons and cylinders - all of which sounds nothing like a rotary engine to me.
Then beam me up, scooty!
First, it doesn't say anything about using rotary engines, their website shows a 2 piston 4-stroke engine.
Second, the reliability of many rotary engines was shortened by idiot owners who didn't know how to treat them. This was really only an issue with the 3rd generation RX-7. Heat generated by twin-turbo charging caused a lot of the 1993-1995 cars to have premature engine failure. However this is not the case for other rotary cars which without the turbos last hundreds of thousands of miles. Even many 3rd gen cars have gone well over 100,000 miles without rebuild which is roughly equal to running 1700 hours on an airplane. Check out the recommended rebuild schedules for airplane motors and many range from 1200-2000 hours. Really sounds like reliability is an issue doesn't it?
Third, check out http://www.rotaryaviation.com/ and http://www.atkinsrotary.com to see why you are so wrong to judge what happened in your brother's car and jump to the conclusion they are not good for airplane use. The mazda rotary is probably the most used auto engine in aviation BECAUSE IT IS RELIABLE.
Do really dense people warp space more than others?
These "flying" cars have been on display for the last 500 years. Even the air force made similar models when it was exploring VTOL possibilities. The main problem, imho, remains fuel: how the hell to you fit enough jet fuel in that tiny skycar? Let alone a passenger? Still, one day (this century or the next), it will all become a reality. It's a shame we won't be here to see it.
It's a neat concept, but i don't think it'll ever catch on. They constantly say that you don't need a pilots license for 400 feet or less then state that it's cruising altitute is 10,000 feet. That and when people start thinking about how terrorists can use this to bomb anything, it won't fly (except maybe on it's tether).
That's just the inventors speculation. Currently there is no such exemption.
The next Cmdr Taco duplicate will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
The air scooter is an ultralight, not a "car". That's a pretty big difference. Move on there's nothing to see here. The flying car still hasn't arrived. When it does you will likely be able to credit this guy.
WURD!!
And it's from Spokane, WA.
""Well, I've done the math. I think it's a modest number if you could sell a couple thousand, when you look at snowmobiles and quads and those things -- not cars," says Norris. "That's a big market. But if we sold say a couple thousand, $50,000 a piece, that's a billion dollars." "
Uh no that would be 100 million dollars.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Tobacco companies will jump at the chance to partner with companies building these cars, and the ad line will read:
"Why drink and drive when you can smoke and fly?"
http://www.moller.com/images/large_news.gif">He
Does anyone smell a patent suit?
And no one has mentioned harnessing the power of the "deadly downwind turn", my own invention!
You have to give enough time for marketers to get busy. Manufacturers to leach the market - you know releasing a better version every few months.
Ya... so i'll be dead before I have one of these.
Sierra Tango Foxtrot Uniform
Someone cuts you off so you fly over top of them and toss your kids diaper over the side..
Is there is more capital seeking inventions?
Is it technologic breakthroughs that make more powerful or efficient engines?
Is more innovative designs?
Is it embeedded computers that make formerly balky engines more practical?
Is it modern virtual companies that allow you to assemble expertise in material, engines, capital, etc. under one or two entrepeneurs in more efficent manner?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Reminds me of a fine overview of the phenomenon of flying cars, and in particular all the hype surrounding the Mitzar, a "flying Ford Pinto", that recorded one takeoff and no landings. Let's hope the SkyScooter, or whatever it's called, and the Mollar SkyCar don't meet the same fate of lots of hype and one tangled mess.
Will it be based on Windows or linux?
I mean, blue screen of death could be a global problem for the car industry if they were Windows based.
--
Spelling chekced by Microsoft Windows FlyXP's Intrneet xeploder
Having gone throught the rigorous and stressful training to become a professional pilot, I have to shudder at the thought of every Joe Sweatsock flying around in one of these. Don't get me wrong, I would love for everyone to experience the joy and freedom of flying their own aircraft, but there are serious safety issues.
I'm old enough to have experienced the "watermelon demo" in the beginning of my training. All us students were taken out onto the ramp, where they had a Cessna 152 fired up, propeller spinning. We all stood back as an instructor threw a watermelon into the spinning propeller. After that, you had a serious respect for the propeller. It is not pretty what a prop will do to a human body.
Btw, they don't do the watermelon demo anymore as its extremely bad for the propeller.
I HAVE CUBIC WISDOM THAT TRANSCENDS AND CONTRADICTS ONE DAY GODS
"Well, I've done the math ... if we sold say a couple thousand, $50,000 a piece, that's a billion dollars."
If I could sell 2,000 items at $50,000 a piece and make a billion dollars I wouldn't be in IT.
So how long before I hear about a small squadron of explosives- and fuel-laden flying cars take out the Empire State Building hmm?
Maybe he will use some of that Lemelson-MIT award money to put up a Slashdot proof website!!!
Your odds of winning the lottery are essentially the same if you play or not. You are still much more likely to be hit by lightning twice than to win the lottery. The lottery is just a tax on stupidity.
...How fast will it get me to Spacely Space Sprockets?
I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
Maglev type cars over specialy designed highways sound like more viable alternative to this.
it's slashdotted
In a car you can drive through a summer thunderstorm with very little risk of losing your life. In a light aircraft it's a very different story, and no Inventor/NASA technology seems to address this. They say you don't need a pilots license to fly one of these below 400 feet in unrestricted airspace. Well...I'm afraid that all the important places in the world (NYC, DC, Seattle, Paris, London, etc) are already surrounded by miles of restricted airspace from the ground up to around 7000 feet (it's been a while, so give or take a few thousand). That being said this may revolutionize air charter/air taxi services. To use this technology for air charter/air taxi there may be a need for relaxing of aviation regulations for the air taxi route, but nothing like the regs that will have to be thrown out to make this a true personal transportation vehicle for anybody.
so he is off by one zero at the end, big deal, not like one zero means anything when you drive a flying car. Does it?
You can't handle the truth.
The poster says we need more "energy" not more oil. Plus, if you'll do a little research, you'll see that, for example, the Moller SkyCar can use a variety of fuels and not just petroleum based ones. But, since that is a predominant energy source that is available today, it is one that he is using. The development of the SkyCar as many challenges. Why should he complicate that with trying to get a hard-to-get (as in not easily acquired by the average pilot) energy source?
More information http://www.viewaskew.com/tv/leno/flyingcar.html
The Lemelson-MIT award does not have a very good track record, at least not from my POW. One example is the text on their web-page about Wilson Greatbatch, another lifetime award winner, which is seriously lacking in accuracy.
(It talks about designing the first sucessful pacemaker implant, which is true only if "sucessful" is taken as "working for more than 9 months." If the time limit is set to anything less, the inventor is suddenly swedish...)
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I don't feel like shelling out ten bucks to know what the heck this is. Anyone feel like explaining it?
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Flying cars have been a Popular Science wet dream for 50 years - maybe more. Personal jet backs fall into the same category. The issues have always been more than technical.
Flying an airplane, even a small one, is not a trivial task. The general population is incapable of taking on that kind of responsibility.
Plus, who will fund and build landing pads or landing strips? Who will agree to the noise from the "airports" or backyard landing pads?
Self awareness - try it!
There's got to be a person of Ford's caliber somewhere...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Interesting aside: Moller has acres and acres of pecan trees, which he eats as a staple of his diet, because he believes they slow the aging process (and he's quite old now indeed.)
In the post 9/11 world... Free-radicals are the terrorists of our bodies!!
Hmmm...
This post encoded with ROT26. If you can read it, you've violated the DMCA. Handcuffs please, sergeant.
When I was a little kid I used to read all the time about these neat flying cars that were only a few years away, once the designers worked out a few kinks and the government figured out the regulatory side. As I've grown up I've continued to see these stories coming along, always promising that these guys have a new flying car that will be ready for consumers at some time right around the bend...
It ain't happening, folks. Now and then these guys might pick up an award or snowball another big team of journalists into reporting on their work, but safe, reliable, affordable flying cars that get reasonable fuel economy aren't going to happen any time soon. And when they do, they'll be tied up in regulatory and insurance messes for years, continuing to prevent wide adoption. At the rate this stuff is moving, by the these designs are ready for the market and the market is ready, the fossil fuels needed to run them will cost so much that people won't want them, and we'll get to wait another twenty years for hydrogen-powered models to arrive.
DIY surface to air missile systems
http://xs4.xs.to/pics/04481/p556222.gif
So they are just making small planes that can do stol ( Short Take-Off and Landing ) and calling them flying cars?...
Taco?
Don't fly!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You'll get too close to the sun and your wings will melt !!!!!!!!!!!!
A courtesy warning brought to you by an early aviator.
So long and thanks for all the fish . . . !!!
http://www.viewaskew.com/tv/leno/flyingcar.html
Moeler gets just as much press on this as the AirScooter.
Does it make the "pl-bl-bl-bl-bl" Jetson car noise too?
We have these today, they're called ultralights.
I can't wait to see the elderly drive flying cars. Mayhem, disaster, flames! I'm so excited. S>
Flying cars have been "right around the corner" for the last 50 years. And yet in 2005 we aren't much closer.
i'm sure a lot of you are fully aware of the "Skycar" made by Moller.. www.moller.com I believe..
personally, their model is actually much more efficient and can run for more than 2 hours I believe.. the gas mileage is better and its faster from what the specs say.. i've been waiting for this for a long freakin time.. looking forward to seeing some more info about the air traffic patterns..
- Hi I'm Linus Torvalds and I pronounce Linux, Lih-nix..
Its single-engine equivalent, the DA-40, does even better; it gets about 40 mpg at a constant 100mph at 10,000 feet. I defy you to find *any* other vehicle that can get 40mpg carrying 4 people at that speed :)
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
At the present rate of oil consumption, which is increasing by the way, the crude oil reserves will be exhausted in about 20 years.
It's a physics based fact that keeping a mass, such as an air car, airborne consumes more energy than a ground based rolling car. So unless they can figure out how to make an air car run on a renewable energy source, which has less energy than oil based fuels, it'll never happen, or at best, it'll happen as the last of oil reserves are used up, and it'll use them up faster yet on top of that.
The miles per gallon on an airship is amazing and the time it takes to travel in a straight-line is much lower then it would be for an automobile that must contend with traffic and the fact that most roads aren't straight-line paths for cross country or cross state travel. They can also carry a significantly higher weight of cargo then comparable size/purpose aircraft are capable of.
Also on the plus side, Rigid Airships are actually safer then most aircar designs, since you are in less trouble if you run out of fuel for your motive power. You could, if you wanted, coast to a 'safe' spot and slowly let your bouyant gas seep from its containers.
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
Sorry, but this is so NOT a flying car. Where's the drinks holder? hmm?
Actually rotaries offer a moderate to above average fuel efficiency if compare to other engines that produce the sam amount of power. Most of the info that rotaries are lacking in fuel efficiency stemmed from the frist carbourated versions and that they were comparing it to other similarly "sized" engines. The rotary engine in the RX-8 is only 80 cubic inches or 1.3 litres and produces 238 I believe with 24 MPG Highway. This is on par with other similarly powered vehicles like the Nissan 350Z which does receive a higher MPG of 26. In that situation one would opt for the rotary...sacrifice 2 MPG in order to lighten the weight.
Most of the time cars are compared in fuel efficiency by the same engine displacement. For example the Honda civic is fairly close with a 1.7liter engine to the rotaries 1.3.The honda civic gets 38 MPG while the RX-8 only gets 24. This is understandable considering the Rotary produces 238 again and the civic produces 127. Once again, in that comparison I would opt for the rotary which is smaller and produces more power.
Not saying the rotary is the end all be all solution for air cars or cars in general but it definetly has its uses and should not be dissed wthout being compared properly
"Norris says you won't need a pilot's license if you fly it under 400 feet in non-restricted air space."
Well damn! That should be interesting what with all the major obstructions (bridges, buildings, power cables and towers and television antennas, etc.) mostly being under 400 feet. Just the place *I* want to fly.
And I'll bet that "non-restricted air space" doesn't include anyplace *you* want to go to.
No one ever had to evacuate a city because the solar panels broke!
I think someone is already seeing these vehicles in a drug addiction capacity.
Dante: All right! I'll go through with the deal. I'll let the German
scientist hack my foot off. Then him and his friends can have their
way with me. All for the flying car.
Randal: You would do it with a bunch of guys just to get a car. I
thought I knew you man.
Kevin Smith's The Flying Car
I think this is a pretty astute observation.
Every time a new transportation technology gains widespread adoption the legal regime has to incorporate the fact that people are injuring one another in novel, previously unforeseen ways.
Much of US tort law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort_law was developed from litigation regarding railroads. Early railroads were always either injuring people directly, or sparking off and causing fires here and there.
We've got a massive compulsory insurance scheme for cars but that doesn't prevent all the litigation as anyone who's seen a lawyer commercial can attest.
I'd bet that there'll initially be some higher legal standard of care one would need to exercise since flying is inherently more dangerous than driving. If the tech improves so that it's mostly autopilot, then that might not be the case.
Grocery store? My tenant is too lazy to walk the 300' to her mailbox. If she had a flying machine, she'd be asking me to cut down some trees so she wouldn't have to fly around them to get her mail.
NardofDoom is right, people will fly these things to the grocery store. Eventually, roads will be reclaimed, and we'll *have* to fly them to the grocery store. (Well, us country folk, anyway.)
Can you imagine the amount of money the City of New York has tied up in Manhattan streets? It's amazing to me that they're still there now, without flying machines. If emergency response vehicles and taxis could fly...
The US aircraft industry died a death of a thousand cuts, a thousand liability lawsuits, most of which were dismissed, but yet STILL cost the companies money. Yes you can sue for court costs, but it's the old saying about "getting blood fom a stone". The problem with the US civilian light aircraft market is not that you can't build a cheap airplane, it's that anyone who thinks the airplane does anything wrong will drag you into court over it, no matter how unknowedgeable they were in operating it or how poorly it was assembled/repaired/maintained, or in what lousy weather conditions they went flying.
....Mr. Moller has had prototypes for years, he has no intention of ever selling anything to the general public if he can go on soaking investors and selling $50 "information packets" the way he has.
My car can "fly" for 4 hours at 110 mph, and it often does, too. Any particular reason for wanting to go half the speed, quarter as far, just because it's above ground?
A couple thousand is two thousand.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=couple
A few people are sloppy and let couple refer to the "few", meaning, but most people prefer the definition referring to a pair.
Although not necessarily efficient to produce, you could run the vehicle, with probably few modifications, on alcohol. ... And if you crash, you could pop open the tank for a swig to help kill the pain ...
O=='=++
That would only be true for a given mass. There are diesel powered airplanes in production that get the equivalent of 20-30 mpg (US). Compare this to a Ford Excursion or Chevy Suburban and you will see that the airplane is actually more economical in fuel usage. It may well be more economical in total energy picture, factoring in manufacturing as well.
In addition, the DA40TDI runs on diesel. It is not currently certified to operate on biodiesel, but there is probably no technical reason it could not do so. (Yeah, yeah, the standard arguments against biodiesel like supposedly taking up all of our farmland to grow fuel, blah blah blah)
So your blanket statement does not hold up even with present technology.
The British use 'billions' when we Americans use 'millions'.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
Is he selling them on E-Bay or do I have to build my own?
Can I fuck my girlfriend in the backseat while it's on autopilot?
How expensive is the fuel and what's the mileage?
Does it come standard equipt with Sirius satellite radio?
I need ANSWERS! ANSWERS! ANSWERS!
I found a video with Dante and Randal having a discussion about the flying car:
http://www.viewaskew.com/tv/leno/flyingcar.html
Kudos to Kevin Smith for predicting this article.
(and from this sunday's episode too!)
Why'd you buy the first hover car ever made?
Didn't you think there would be some kinks to work out?
Wow, the thought of a taxi driver in a flying vehicle scares me to death.
"With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine." -- RFC 1925
If you've been out of the action for that long, perhaps you don't understand just how serious the political assaults against General Aviation have gotten. What we DON'T need is more people using "pseudo-aviation" style vernacular when discussing GA because that will only help to further propagate the kinds of mis-information and half-truths that the common media is so full of WRT general aviation. When discussing general aviation, we should always make it a point to always be accurate and technically precise with our terminology. Especially now that the Light Sport Aircraft / Sport Pilot Certificate program is finally in place in the USA and general aviation is poised on the brink of either a fresh revival... or extinction... depending upon the collective behaviour of the established general aviation community and all those new Sport Pilots who'll hopefully be joining our ranks soon. The general aviation community has always had a pretty good record of "policing ourselves" in the past, and we definitely need to keep this tradition going on in our new (hopefully revitalized) future.
PS: Get back into that left seat man....
PPS: To everybody out there in the US who is interested in being a pilot, please consider joining the EAA www.eaa.org and/or the AOPA www.aopa.org
and if you're interested in the new Sport Pilot certificate and light sport aircraft, please visit the EAA's Sport Pilot Website.
I saw an interview with the test pilot of a personal flying jetpack. When asked why the product did not take off the test pilot cited two reasons, the cost of fuel and the test pilot said, "can you imagine a world where any person could be flying these things around in any direction over your head."
A hand up and a foot on every chest...
built by M$
About the use of fuel, from http://www.moller.com/skycar/
The Rotapower engine produces little NOx, the most difficult pollutant to eliminate. In addition, using a stratified charge combustion process greatly reduces the unburned hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide emitted....The Skycar's fuel-efficient engines and ability to run on regular automotive gasoline result in low fuel costs. The Skycar is significantly more fuel efficient in passenger miles per gallon than the tilt-rotor V22 Osprey, helicopters or many commercial jet airplanes.
I remember when this first came out, and the inventor claimed on a TV program also that these engines (unmanned versions already in use by municipalities working on bridges and such) can also run on extremely alternative fuels. I remember he specifically said that it could even run on "used McDonald's fry vat grease". In my opinion, this kind of rubust and effecient engine (in terms of flying engine effeciency) is exactly what the world needs. If someone can link to the alternative fuel use information from long ago, I would enjoy reading it again.
Cleaning the net one sed at a time! s/sex/sermons/; s/hot/holy/; s/goats/thebible/; www.holysermonswiththebible.com
Contrary to what the slashdot-summary says, there doesn't appear to be any video of the airscooter. There is video of the skycar, but that's old hat by now.
but since I flight-tested my helicopter beanie-hat, I ended up looking ver my shoulder all the time.
--- Yx3 = Delilah ---
This is kind of like saying "I need to continue to grow my per day spending. I need to find new and more plentiful ways to make money. Having lots of money has change my life, where I live, etc... I'm not sure I can afford a yacht any time soon, but If could, wouldn't that be cool?"
It's true; spending energy is fun and has many positive benefits, but at the moment our primary energy source is oil, and it isn't renewable. One day, maybe we'll have some new, safe, and more plentiful energy "income" sources, but right now we don't. When you're out of work, spending all your cash reserves is a dumb thing to do, and that's what we're doing with oil, right now. There's no "energy Visa company" we can borrow from while we're out of oil and waiting for fusion or high-altitude wind generation, either.
It is, in fact, even worse than the cash analogy; development of new energy technologies requires energy. If we let our energy reserves drop low enough, eventually we won't have the resources required to invest in new energy technology. It's like driving down the highway, and being close to empty. It's nice that there's a gas station 40 miles up the road, but if you keep the pedal to the metal, and burn up all your gas in 20 miles, you're still fscked.
Last year the story ran about a $30k personal helicopter.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
I think the emphasis is on MONEY$$$$$!
WTF is a wyfe?
I saw one in 1985. It could go 88 mph. Everyone knows we'll all have flying cars by 2015 and they'll sell conversion kits for 39999.95
First regular ground cars will still be here for quite some time. If we lived back in the 1890's then these air cars would be the technological equivalent of steam powered vehicles. But before any of this gets off the ground it'll need to be:
..well you've seen most of this sort of thing in scifi films and cartoons like the jetsons. Also in the Jetsons they had an impteus for developing flying vehicles and that was that the smog near the ground made it inhabitable so that everything went up (houses, offices, stores, and so did travel). What other social needs at the time lead to the development of the automobile? getting horse poop on your shoes all the time?
1) cheap, needs to be mass produced by a manufacturer who sees that he can make money, and for this to occur the following below also has to be true.
2) safe, (first we need to get technology to the level where cars on the ground can travel without the driver having to take the wheel. First get it working in "2d" space then "3d" later. Use *Failsafe* systems, would you want to drop from 100ft+ in the air because some bird ran into your turbine?
3) fuel efficient, only 2 hours airtime? no chance of being mass produced yet. Using gasoline for this sort of vehicle is like using steam to power the first automobiles.
5) did i mention *safe*? people in the US are still scared to fly, think if they had to do it by themselves.
6) lots of new traffic laws and traffic technology
7) taller buildings with air "parking garages". Everything seems to be going up in places like japan because things are getting crowded below
Apparently, the stress of slashdotting on the Airscooter website was so bad that it caused them to reinstall Apache.
-------
"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
-- George Orwell
Oh, what's this "peak oil" I'm talking about? A quote from Wikipedia's "Hubbert peak" entry:
"The Hubbert peak theory, also known as peak oil, is an influential theory concerning the long-term rate of conventional oil and other fossil fuels production and depletion. It predicts that future world oil production will soon reach a peak and then rapidly decline. The actual peak year will only be known after it has passed. Based on available production data, proponents have predicted the peak years to be 1989, 1995, 1995-2000, or, according to one influential group, 2007 for oil and somewhat later for natural gas. This may lead to either minor economic or major catastrophic consequences for the world since modern civilization is dependent on cheap and abundant fossil fuels, especially for transportation. The Hubbert peak theory, while controversial, is increasingly influencing policy makers both within the oil industry and government."
Meanwhile I wonder when the first auction for a place in a trailer park for flying cars will show up (analogous to the WLAN cable that was "sold" on ebay).
Far superior to the Airscooter will be the Liftercraft, composed almost entirely of balsa and aluminum foil! Silent, cheap, and almost sensual in design...
x .htm
http://jlnlabs.imars.com/lifters/liftercraft/inde
In Photoshop, nobody can see your strings.
Here in New York, driving an obnoxiously loud Harley down the street is risking your life, because pedestrians, residents, and everyone else can barely restrain themselves from hauling you off the bike and bludgeoning you to death with your own mufflers. Imagine that instead of a Harley, you had a loud turboprop coming and going morning and night. Then imagine thousands of them coming and going all the time. Only the deaf would survive.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
"It's a physics based fact that keeping a mass, such as an air car, airborne consumes more energy than a ground based rolling car."
fact really? what laws are you basing that on? Most airplanes have better drag coeffiecients than autos AND they don't have the rolling friction of the tyres on the road.
If you want the whine about oil use so be it but not be a retard about it.
It's a physics based fact that keeping a mass, such as an air car, airborne consumes more energy than a ground based rolling car.
No, it isn't.
There are far too many variables involved to make such a blanket statement: L/D ratio of the aircraft, mass, rolling resistance and air drag of the ground vehicle, terrain, speeds, stopping and starting, etc, etc.
As an extreme example, consider what kind of gas mileage a glider gets, even counting whatever gas is used to tow (or propel, for a motor-glider) it to altitude. Compare that to an SUV with under-inflated tires. Even a (non-gliding) Cessna gets better gas mileage than an SUV (I don't recall the exact numbers of the top of my head, aircraft fuel consumption is listed in gallons (or sometimes pounds) per hour.)
Now, something that relies on a fan instead of a wing for lift probably will have higher consumption, but you're blanket statement is simply false.
-- Alastair
The feds won't even let you get on a commercial airplane with nail clippers. Do you really think they're going to let the general public have unrestricted access to personal flying bombs...er...cars?
Not a flying chance.
I'd pay the extra $20,000 to have a metal body around me....
People have been predicting the end of oil for as long as we've known about oil... At some point it might happen but you're not the first to claim it'll 'run out in 20 yrs'. In reality, we continue to improve efficiencies in extracting oil and even ways of making oil that fundamentally challenge the historical thought that oil takes millions of years at extreme temp and pressure to produce. And, we continue to find new sources of oil. My point is, if the new sources dry up (Canada Oil Sand are a 'new' source that alone can keep the entire world supplied for decades)- If/When the 'new sources' don't materialize, we'll be working on improving extraction through efficiencis and conservation - more drastically than we are now (which isn't too drastic at all). So, Oil running out - not likely in 20 yrs even at current levels of use and extraction.
The cbs artical has put a picture of a moller aircar in it. Despite what people seem to assume this is not what the airscooter talked about is!!
The airscooter is a little personal helipcopter. At $50,000 and 55mph for one man open cockpit this is hardly revolutionary and people are just getting overexited because they are confusing it with a skycar.
See
http://www.woodynorris.com/ who the artical is about for pictures of sky copter
http://members.cox.net/arrio/gyrobee.htm for the kind of gyrocopters people build for around $10,000 and get 70mph out of!
I certainly hope you've matured quite a lot over the intervening years. You really should get back into flying, though you ought to get some training with a current CFI since a fair amount of rules have changed over the years. You'll probably have a bit of difficulty getting affordable aircraft insurance with that suspension on your record, but even without a current medical, you'd be a good candidate for flying a "light sport aircraft" with a few hours to get your flying chops back. Just don't go buzzing any schools or houses again. If you find that you must fly low to get your jollies, do it out over open farmland, lakes or rivers... just watch out for power lines and antenna towers.
PS: The FSDO will still be watching out for YOU! Mwuhuhuhuh!!!
I think you'd need to compare "highway travel" VS "as-the-crow-flies."
In some places the ground-based travel is going to win out... all you need it thrust to go forward not stay aloft. In many places though, airborn travel is a much more direct route. Highways have to move around large obstacles such as mountains/hills, (some) forests, large water bodies etc. This means that the path to your destination is shorter, so while the vehicle is less efficient fuel-wise, it is more efficient distance-wise.
Don't know about helicopters, but I did see ~$10-20k gyrocopter kits.
And if you're a skilled mechanic(on slashdot?) there's also blueprints around.
The price isn't as important as the category. This AirScooter doesn't need a pilot's license so it's more accessible, something that didn't appear in the summary. As usual, Engadget got it right 2 days ago.
Since when is Microsloth media or Real considered in any way free?
Even before we have used up the remaining crude oil, there is the problem with peak oil and it's consequences. Economics and the availability of cheap energy will be a greater problem because at the moment our societies are extremely dependant on cheap oil, that is, cheap energy.
For slightly more than $50k you can buy your own kit helicopter (a real helicopter, not some mini-rotor frame that the other poster replied with). Here:
Link.
Look under pricing and $67k gets you pretty much everything. It was not entirely clear if all of the avionics were included or not, but all the key components are there: engine, drivetrain, controls, support systems, airframe, body.
However, you can tell that this is a 'cheap' consumer grade aircraft due to the 1000-hour overhaul recommendation. So you won't be seeing any of these flying military or commerical service. They are simply hobby craft and nothing more. But I would love to have one anyhow.
How many car journies are straight lines? Couple this flying car with GPS and you can literally fly straight to your destination.
Air Car will travel 10 times faster than a regular one, will fly on a straight line rather than follow roads and will not do much stop and go driving. Still sure about your figures?
If i can fly over a city in a dstraight line with no stop lights i do beleive i would use less gas than zigzagging around in the city in traffic and at stoplights and such. Also, there is more 'Air' than 'road' so traffic jams will be a less frequent occurence.
face the world with eyes of fire.
I was hoping we could post-pone the genesis of Coruscant til the NEXT century, but obviously not. Now I'm forced to move back to Naboo just to get away from all this **** noise and traffic! I warned the empire not to build these stupid flying machines, but did they listen?!?!
...there goes the morning commute(ers).
-matthew
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
"used McDonald's fry vat grease" becomes biodiesel with some processing. Almost any old diesel engine can run on biodiesel. Nothing alternative about it, except that it's still more expensive than diesel, and the exhaust smells like McD's (yucK!).
Im fairly sure these device wont be valid road going vehicals for a while atleast.
"I'm", "sure that these", "devices", "won't", "road-going", "vehicles", "at least".
I am wonder (fairly sure they will)if they will need
"I wonder". Also the parenthesized phrase should be placed after "need" or "scheme", or turned into a standalone sentence following the the sentence in which it is currently located.
standerd aircraft not to mention the cross with auto mobiles
"standard", "aircraft, not", "automobiles.".
Mr Morris then
"Mr. Morris, then".
I will definantly be rather tempted
"definitely". Also, it should be "I will definitely be tempted" or "I will be rather tempted". Having "definitely" and "rather" together as you have done is definitely rather contradictory.
to get when if i ever
"one", "I".
around(Lets
"around. (Let's".
).
".)".
Now I have to change my sci-fi tale again!
/. story includes police mechs, I'll shoot myself!
*scrubs: normal cars
*changes to: flying cars
If tomorrow's
A 30.06 deer rifle would be just as effective for a lot less money.
It's part of a hazing ritual which has been performed every generation since airplanes were first invented. They're never going to actually let consumers have flying cars, it'd be too dangerous. But it's fun to exploit the bright-eyed naivete of every fresh new batch of young 'uns...
That is indeed what is needed.
As for talent, training, attention, and skill, there is no reason we cannot make the automobile a lot more difficult and dangerous to drive. However, I prefer the idea of making things easier to fly. (I also like the change in medicine some years back when white gowns and clean hands replaced black coats and blood.)
An answer to fuel efficiency is the market: have credits like energy credits so that people who ride bikes and walk and don't screw up the air can sell their credits to the guys with SUVS. For sure I'd be willing to do a lot of walking and use my credits to fly.
"Crash course on flying cars"
and in tiny letters:
"life insurance required"
Another thing that got forgotten was the fact that against all probability a sperm whale had suddenly been called into existence several miles above the surface of an alien planet.
... ! What's happening? it thought.
... oh! this is an interesting sensation, what is it? It's a sort of ... yawning, tingling sensation in my ... my ... well I suppose I'd better start finding names for things if I want to make any headway in what for the sake of what I shall call an argument I shall call the world, so let's call it my stomach.
... wind! Is that a good name? It'll do ... perhaps I can find a better name for it later when I've found out what it's for. It must be something very important because there certainly seems to be a hell of a lot of it. Hey! What's this thing? This ... let's call it a tail - yeah, tail. Hey! I can can really thrash it about pretty good can't I? Wow! Wow! That feels great! Doesn't seem to achieve very much but I'll probably find out what it's for later on. Now - have I built up any coherent picture of things yet?
...
... ow ... ound ... round ... ground! That's it! That's a good name - ground!
And since this is not a naturally tenable position for a whale, this poor innocent creature had very little time to come to terms with its identity as a whale before it then had to come to terms with not being a whale any more.
This is a complete record of its thoughts from the moment it began its life till the moment it ended it.
Ah
Er, excuse me, who am I?
Hello?
Why am I here? What's my purpose in life?
What do I mean by who am I?
Calm down, get a grip now
Good. Ooooh, it's getting quite strong. And hey, what's about this whistling roaring sound going past what I'm suddenly going to call my head? Perhaps I can call that
No.
Never mind, hey, this is really exciting, so much to find out about, so much to look forward to, I'm quite dizzy with anticipation
Or is it the wind?
There really is a lot of that now isn't it?
And wow! Hey! What's this thing suddenly coming towards me very fast? Very very fast. So big and flat and round, it needs a big wide sounding name like
I wonder if it will be friends with me?
And the rest, after a sudden wet thud, was silence.
I was talking to someone at work about this a week or two ago. People have known how to make flying cars for a while now. If the field were viable, it would be fairly easy for an automobile/aerospace corporation to design and build one in the next couple of years.
The problem is and has always been the infrastructure and regulation required to make it anywhere near safe for average citizens to fly. This Highway in the Sky program sounds neat, but it still doesn't address many of the major problems involved. I'd hate to see a flying car stall in New York, for instance, or a drunk teenager crash one into a building.
Give most people a plane and tell them they have to keep steering it in this little box on a screen and see how long they'll stick with it before going off on a joyride. The only way these things wouldn't endanger innocents would be if police installed anti-air missiles at every street corner to blow anyone that veers from their flight path to pieces. I'm not sure that too many people would line up to buy a flying car once that went into effect, though.
[insert witty quote here]
Put up a tower that telescopes up to 500 feet with a flashing red light at the top.
When the FAA comes out to look, telescope it back down. When they leave, raise it back up.
OMFG. Personal flying machines! This is just what we need here in the UK as the road system is so fecked up.
I can see it now...First I apply for my provisional aircar license, then the months of training for the aircar driving test (£30 an hour for the training, £200 for the test). Once I pass and get my full licence I can buy an aircar (£300,000 + 40% aircar tax + 17.5% Vat) and pay the Air Fund Duty (£2000 a year) and Aircar insurance (£50,000 a year)and then i can fly along the narrow, circuitous and heavily monitored air corridors at a speed of no more than 40knots (penalty for exceeding speed limit, £250 and loss of licence) to an aircar park (parking fee £20 an hour, aircar fuel £20 a gallon) only a few miles from my destination.
Ah, the freedom of the air!
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
Although it must realistically be conceded that we do not know exactly how long the world's oil supply will last, we do know that there is a finite supply of it, and as a non-renewable resource (or not practically renewable in a convenient span of time, at least), we will eventually run out.
Predictions vary widely... anywhere from 10 years to a couple of hundred. Which is more accurate depends on which variables you consider... economy of access, whether or not particular reserves are being tapped yet, etc.
The point is still valid, however... we will run out oil eventually, and at the rate we are consuming it now (with no indications that this rate will slow down anytime soon), this running out will happen relatively abruptly, leading to something of a crisis in our society on account of our dependance on private transportation.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I watched the interview on 60 minutes last night and that's exactly what he said - I though "two thousand times fifty thousand - what?!??"
Maybe he used to work for Enron.
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
It may be a cool technological curiosity, but in an age of terrorism and $2.50 a gallon for gas, I doubt it's going to happen. Which is good, cause 80 year old drivers are bad enough as it is in terrestrial cars; I don't think any of us need to see them in a sky car.
exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis
I'd argue he's the best sanake oil salesman.
He's been collecting money for 20+ years to develop the same vehicle, and always keeps it just a few years from taking over the skies.
His big advances have been new motors (not actually for sale) and computer control (not actually working). Its funny how no one seems to mention the incredible difficulty of ducted fans on a large scale. Everyone agrees they are more efficient, but no one has got them to work on a large scale, including McDonell Douglas, Gruman, Lockheed Martin, NASA or even Moller. This doesn't mean he won't be the first but, given his track record, I don't think he's even trying.
He is always saying flight tests have to be run with the vehicle tethered "because of insurance costs". Funny how that didn't affect Burt Rutan with all of his experimental aircraft and kit plane designs.
His aircar uses an engine built by a "sister" company that perpetually "will be available soon". The engine is alos not available for homebuilt aircraft due to "liability" concerns. Funny how that hasn't stopped hundreds of people from using VW Beetle engines in their planes. Also funny that Mazda isn't after his engine. Their rotary engines are terribly in-efficient.
But as the old saying goes, "its a sin to let a fool keep his money", and Moller definitely doesn't commit that sin.
----- If communism is a system where the government owns business, what do you call a system where business owns govern
"electic" should be "electric".
Also, I may have given the impression that the Ionic Breeze creates enough breeze to lift itself into the air. What I meant to write was that it creates a breeze, and there are devices that create similar breezes, and these other devices are light enough, for the amount of breeze that they produce, that they can lift themselves into the air.
Finally, the link that I gave was to a page that links to various other pages, some of which explain the technology. This page, about halfway down, gives a summary explanation. Note that they also discuss a "Biefeld-Brown Effect", which IMO borders on pseudoscience.
Hull # 2, please. Ok, might be a bit big for a daily commute for one person, but what the heck. It comes with OnStar and XM. Or is that General Motors?
As it should be, but you should also look at the positive aspects: Milla Jovovich will fall through the roof of your flying taxi into your lap.
Taxi drivers in landlubbing vehicles are pretty scary, anyway.
I worry more about the shoddy maintenance.
Look at the cars on ths side of the road for lack of proper maintenance. Look at the heaps driving down the road with the muffler dragging and clouds of smoke trailing. They even get exemptions from emmisions because they can't afford to fix them.
If the average yahoo doesn't maintain his car and breaks down, the damage is minimal. If its flying then its not. Further proof, look at AAA and the other clubs offering roadside assistance. They are booming because people know they won't maintain their stuff and "expect" to break down. The auto club is not going to be much good after a 10,000 ft fall.
----- If communism is a system where the government owns business, what do you call a system where business owns govern
It's a physics based fact that keeping a mass, such as an air car, airborne consumes more energy than a ground based rolling car.
Yeah? So when I fly my paraglider for a decent XC, say 65k in around three hours, that consumed more energy than a car would take to carry my 200+ pounds that same distance? Wow, wonder how on earth that happens without a motor?
Perhaps you're overlooking a little something here. Can't quite put my finger on it...
rub it in, why don't you?
UK price is more like $6 a (US)gallon .
Near miss!? More like a near hit. A collision is a near-miss.
I'm about to enroll as a student helicopter pilot and went through much anxiety over the inexorable oil crisis looming ahead... My majorly Libertarian/Leftist/Paranoid/Conspiratorial mind had me pacing sawdust into my diningroom floor. But after much deliberation and many discussions with experienced pilots, I realized the sheer outrageousness of such anxiety. There are too many people in the world today in too many congested areas to simply "run out of oil" and call it quits for helicopters and the like. The medical industry, firefighting and a few other select workforces simply cannot do without the miracle of vertical flight.
The overwhelming majority of helicopters are driven via turboshaft engines; they are capable of burning just about anything imaginable: Gasoline, Kerosene, diesel, PARAFIN!, all order of natural gasses... I even heard about an engineering student that made a small one run on whisky! Small adaptations to the fuel system allow for these different types of fuel... The point is that any form of hydrocarbon-based energy source or whatever is within the bounds of powering vertical flight aircraft.
In the end though, I am crossing my fingers for electric flight: Electric motors are so reliable and at myriad RPMs, offer so much torque (the critical component to powering rotorcraft,) one can only salivate at the potential future of aviation.
And on that note: I believe that someone has modified a small composite sport plane such that it may fly on hydrogen fuel cells.
Last time I checked, the plane's prop was driven by a small electric motor powered by conventional batteries... with fuel cells to be installed shortly.
-ubuntu others as you would have others ubuntu you.
> up to 10,000 feet above sea level
So does that mean that if you launch it from 2000 feet above sea level, you've only got 8000 feet of headroom? What if you launch it from 10,000 feet? And how does it know how far the ground is above sea level?
Darwin.
The future of the annual Darwin Awards looks very bright.
Fuel -- It is a myth that Gasoline needs to be made only from oil pumped from the ground. You can make it out of any organic source - vegtable oil would do. How about that for renewal.
First off, it's nothing revolutionary...it's a freakin gyrocopter. Kit gyrocopters have been around for decades. Secondly, there's no way this guy is going to get 50k for this piece of crap...no matter how many plastic parts he attaches to it...it's still a damn kit gyrocopter. This is a purely recreational vehicle...no one is going to want to fly to dinner and a movie in this thing...it's not even an enclosed cabin. That's like selling an ATV for 50k. I hate articles like this.
It takes just a moment and an action to destroy. It takes some time and thought to create.
Not to argue the point as I would be 100% onside with conservation and alternative forms of energy.
But one of the most interesting items I read about a year ago was a potential foundation-shattering article about the fact that people can produce oil themselves given the proper conditions and the fact that it doesn't take millions of years under miles of rock to produce it. It thus may not be a finite source of energy
Supply and demand combined with human spirit is a fundamentally complex thing when you look at it over time.
Lessen the supply of oil, and some people will cut back, while others will find alternatives *and* others will find more ways to get the oil.
For example: At $50/BB it might not be economical to look for better ways to source and process oil, but if oil hits $200/BB - you'll be digging up your own back yard with your kid's toy shovel.
(I jest, but the point is, you didn't think of looking there 'before', but it makes sense to look there 'now').
Before I opene myself up to scads of flaming - I AM conservationist-minded!
This is not related to the lifters. If you read further, you'd know that. But then again, this IS slashdot.
IIRC, the idea is to use a magnetic field to hold in a charged gas. The charged gas will then push back against whatever is on top of it - in effect, making an electric hovercraft. I could be remembering that wrong though, it's been years since I looked into this.
While the math on that holds; the engineering challenge of making it work is a different matter altogether.
IT IS NOT A SOLVED PROBLEM. YOU CANNOT JUST "BUILD YOUR OWN HOVERBOARD" FROM PLANS ON THE INTERNET.
The above link is a good starting point for someone seriously interested. That's about it.
..don't panic
Basically it's a mini-chopter. Big deal.
It's a physics based fact that keeping a mass, such as an air car, airborne consumes more energy than a ground based rolling car.
It may be true that it's harder to keep a plane flying than a car rolling, but think of an airship. It doesn't require any energy to keep airborne (physics don't require any energy for that), is generally probably much more efficient than a car, and yet its mass is certainly bigger than that of a car. So your "physics fact" is certainly not one.
Your figure on oil reserves is also probably wrong, but I agree with you that this is still a big problem.
1. Airlines will lobby against this, and they will win. $ is at stake.
2. The Dept of Homeland Security will be against it. That will stop it dead in it's tracks.
Yeah, but if everybody has these cars and everybody drives like you, there's still going to be accidents.
Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
When all the evil global warming finally melts the polar icecaps, and huge floods surge down across costal areas, we'll just move everyone inland, and harness all the flood-tides as a free energy source.
:-)
There's an upside to everything, you know.
--
AC
It might seem cool the first time you see a shiny new sky car zipping over top of your house. Lets fast-forward 40 years into the future.
The second generation of sky-cars are out on the market, and the first generation are nearing the end of their lifespan. Finally, the average citizen can afford to go out to the used sky-car lot and pick up an old beater. Now, you've got some guy who barely has the cash to buy the thing in the first place, let alone pay for gas, maintenence and insurance.
He's flying over your house with the tank on empty, and he doesn't have the insurance to pay for the damage when he breaks down and crashes into your house. Doesn't seem quite as cool anymore. It's bound to happen.
Yeah, people used to tell that to a friend of mine at college.
He won 1.2 million and left school for a year to vacation.
Is he as stupid as you are?
Although this is a great advancement in helicopter design it's not going to become a flying car. You still have to deal with engine outages and auto-rotation so you'll need to be a pilot to fly it. I can but a Robinson R22 2-person chopper and do everything that this unit can do, although it takes more skill. It's a great achievement but it's not a car. It's a hobbyists toy. Even if they enclose it, it will face the same issues as modern small choppers.
Methanol, which is made from corn and such, has about 300 octane. So I think we can fuel it with out relying on "the man" for oil.
Then you need to look at www.innovatortech.ca/xe.html where you can get a personal helicopter for about $25k. The hard (and expensive) part will be getting your helicopter license. For a couple grand more, you can get a float-equipped model that can be registered as an ultralight.
"For all you folks headed into downtown, the pigeon index is 72, and be on the look out for a flock of low flying geese."
> At the present rate of oil consumption, which is increasing by the way, the crude oil reserves will be exhausted in about 20 years.
Stating that as a fact only implies you are only regurgitating talking points told to you by someone else. The truth is, we DO NOT KNOW how long it will take. In reality, it could happen four years from now, or we could find huge reserves to last us 100 year. Both are extremely unlikely, and to state a definitive time is political B.S.
Posted AC because I don't want to get modded offtopic just because I corrected someone trying to spread their crap.
I'm 9 miles from work, in a straight line, but in two dimensions on the ground, I have to drive 17 miles to get there. Not to mention stop and go traffic. Flying lets you take more efficient routes, and avoid traffic, at least if you're an early adopter.
dyson sphere. it's the only viable solution in the long run. but unfortunately, in the long run, we're all dead.
"I thought I could organize freedom. How Scandinavian of me."
laughing at this stupid article!!!!!!
I mean, didn't he make something like that quite a few years a go?
Isn't this a stinking helicopter??
Ohh, wait!!
No!!!! minus points for being a smartass!!!! NOOO!!!!
Your stupitidy are belong to... you!!! get it?
Have a good one.
===== "Every head is a different world so don't invade mine you FREAK!" smartSAGA said
Of course, the US will never allow anything like this to be available to the public with no restrictions. Just think of the potential for TERROR!
You must think in Russian.
Is this the place?
Good album to get a copy of, BTW, if you don't have one.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
From the article. pg. 2 "First, you're going to see them well before that in a military, paramilitary, police, drug addiction, border patrol type of capacity."
I'm not so sure it's such a good idea to give these to drug addicts.
In 1865 a book by Stanley Jevons argued that Britain would run out of coal in a few short years' time. In 1914, the US Bureau of Mines estimated that supplies would last only 10 more years. In 1939, the US department of the interior predicted that oil would last only 13 more years. In 1951, it made the same projection: oil had only 13 more years. As Professor Frank Notestein of Princeton said in his later years: "We've been running out of oil ever since I was a boy." Regular gasoline costs the same in real terms as it did in 1950. In the 1960s overpopulation was going to cause massive worldwide famine around 1980. A decade later we were being told the world would be out of oil by the 1990s. This was an especially chilly prospect, since, as Newsweek reported in 1975, we were in a climatic cooling trend that was going to reduce agricultural outputs for the rest of the century, leading possibly to a new Ice Age. I have this sinking feeling that in 20 years, someone will post on /. that "the crude oil reserves will be exhausted in about 20 years." :)
Of course, by then solar and wind power will have come down in cost (as they have been doing, in real terms, for the past 20 years), and substitution effects will have futher reduced our demand for oil. And this ignores improvements in engine design, efficeiency etc.
So long as oil consumption is left to market forces we will never run out of oil. That doesn't mean it might not get very expensive, becase that surely could happen. However, worrying that we are going to "run out" of oil is, and has been for the last 100 years, silly.
You can't add pianos and telephones.
What regulation? We don't need no regulation. Can you actually trust a people in a flying car. Oh sure this is what they said about the automobile. But I really think this is different. This has more safety problems and bigger implication if something goes wrong. It seems only wealthy people will be able to afford them. And money has no measure of common sense. Can you imagine Paris Hilton or people like her in their brand new flying car. What about 30 licensed terrorist? Heres some food for thought it seems that these companies want to sell us a flying car so they can start raking in the money but what if I am a big moron. Maybe we will have moron detectors to prevent these type of people from flying. I think the typical moronic attitude will be if I pay 60K US I should be able to fly my car however the hell I want. I will do what I want and apologize if I get caught. I would like to fly low and fast over my neighborhood at 3:00 AM. I would like to fly it under Interstate bridges on the California 405. I want to play chicken with my best friends flying car. I want to fly between building in downtown New York. I want to fly into Military restricted fly zones (Area 51). I want to scare the hell out of people on the Interstate. I want to tailgate other people who have flying cars. Next time I have a bad day I want to wipe out everyone in my block or if anyone cuts me off. I will force them to crash. Besides all the other fliers don't know how to fly as well as I do. I'll say sorry when I get caught. My personal view: I think that the way we see flying cars being implemented is all wrong. In the movies it seems that all the flying is safe and people can fly around wherever they want to. But in reality this can not be because peoples feeling, attitudes and physical abilities get in the way. I think the only way this will work is if the power to fly around is taken from you and your flying car(s) are programed at time of departure with a destination in which your car is automatically piloted for you. This will insure that traffic patterns are followed. And safety features in case of mechanical failure. (Parachute) -And the car has to have the ability to float for water landings. And some sort of emergency override in case of computer failure. I can imagine a very large wireless type computer network tying this all in. Maybe running Linux.--
Nice XC there! My best is currently 42 km in my hang glider, which is still pretty fair. It took me about two hours, so I guess my average speed is similar to yours. But I'm usually not flying for speed, but for scenery and distance. Nothing like drifting over the countryside at 5,000'! (Not having made many XC flights of that sort of distance, I always get a kick out of how long it takes a motorized vehicle to come and get me!)
And just to keep somewhat on topic on the subject of fuel, I keep thinking about ways of launching HG/PG that don't require fuel. A sailplane fellow once mentioned that his club used to launch sailplanes with big bungee cords. I wonder how that would work for a foot-launched wing... maybe there would be too much stored energy in a bungee cord, but how about a small team of runners with a less-elastic rope...
According to the BBC the predicted number of years until the oil runs out has actaully increased since the 70s (based on proven reserves and assuming consumption remains constant).
"we will run out oil eventually... this running out will happen relatively abruptly, leading to something of a crisis in our society on account of our dependance on private transportation."
This is very much NOT true. We will not suddenly wake up one day and find all the oil gone. What will happen is that price of oil will slowly continue to rise for decades. This will facilitate a smooth transition from oil to alternative energy sources.
What most people don't understand about oil is that we dig up very little of the blackstuff. When we drop a well down and start sucking up reservoirs of this oil, we are really only dragging up the easiest to reach oil that is just sitting there. Most oil is left untouched due to the fact that it would be very expensive to remove it.
Three things are going to happen to make the cost of oil slowly rise as it is depleted.
1) Speculators will make sure that it rises slowly. Speculators watch the supply of oil and basically bet on how much it is going to cost in the future. While they do drive the price of the oil up by buying out supply, they also ensure a more even distribution over time of its distribution. For instance, if suddenly the oil companies were to announce that HOLY SHIT we are out of oil in a year, speculators would quickly buy up the supply and start parceling it away. The price absolutely would go up, but we wouldn't go from oil gushing out of our ears to being bone dry.
2) As the cost of oil is driven up, oil companies will naturally start digging up more expensive to extract oil. At $30 a barrel it makes no sense to go to an old oil well and start extracting all that stuff that takes $50 a barrel to extract. However, once the price of oil hits $100 per barrel, that $50 per barrel oil will make a tidy profit. So, as the cost for oil goes up, more and more expensive oil will be introduced to the market. The oil will not suddenly run out. Instead, more expensive oil will be introduced to the market that will slowly drive the price up.
3) As the cost of oil goes up, the demand for oil will go down. This is economics 101 supply and demand. Oil is the energy source of choice simply because it is relatively clean (compared to some thing), a very dense energy source, and extremely cheap. Today oil is cheap for the amount of energy you can make from it. The stuff is plentiful enough to fuel the world, and cheap enough for almost everyone to be able to buy it. This will not always be true. As the price goes up, more people will start to spend a few extra dollars to avoid having to shell out so much at the pump. Alternative energy sources will be comparatively cheaper then oil. People will move naturally away from oil. You can see a perfect of this by looking at Europe and the US. The US, where this is almost no taxation on oil, people own big ugly fuel hungry cars. In Europe, where the taxes on oil account for a full ¾ of the costs, people use significantly more fuel efficient cars and in general burn much less oil. Up the price of oil by 500% and even Americans will find it in their hearts (or more likely wallets) to be more fuel efficient.
The net result is that as the price of oil goes up, the consumption of the stuff goes down. As consumption goes down, the price slows its upward slope. The result is that you have a gradual increase in oil prices and a gradual move away from using it.
Traffic jams "in-flight" will be extremely rare if NASA's software works as touted. However, humans tend to clump to maximum density -- and this type of vehicle increases maximum density. So what happens when there are suddenly a few million of these things trying to park at the same time in the downtown core... some with their gas gagues on E due to having to wait for so long in a holding pattern while trying to find a parking spot?
In a country where graduated licensing of motorcycles despite it's many and well known benefits is refused and obhored by the populace let alone the agencies charged with keeping the public safety under some kind of control, giving people who can't be bothered to control their land-bound craft with enough competence not to routinely destroy other vehicles and personal property a flying apparatus is beyond insane.
At the present rate of oil consumption, which is increasing by the way, the crude oil reserves will be exhausted in about 20 years.
:-)
Too bad the rate of production will decrease, not increase, starting right about now. That brings on a slightly different set of problems, of course. But it does mean that our oil reserves won't get used up within 20 years
Last year the story ran about a $30k personal helicopter.
Best of all, in the comments for that story somebody posted a link to the AutoScooter: here...
Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005
I wanted to point out that #3 is already happening, right now. Studies are showing that for the first time Americans are starting to reconsider their large SUV purchase as gas hits $3 USD per gallon. And many drivers are starting to seriously look at hybrids. Hell, people are now paying over retail to get their hands on a prius.
Today I didn't even have to use my AK; I got to say it was a good day -- Icecube
I watched the segment about these prototype "personal air cars" on 60 Minutes this past Sunday. A few points kept popping into my head:
1. It will always be way more efficient to move hundreds of people per passenger jet than one person per "air car."
2. All this talk about NASA's "highway in the sky" sounds great until 5000 air cars want to land at the same time/place during rush hour.
3. Obvious safety problems...
4. Don't a lot of these things just look like glorified gyrocopters?
5. Elwood Norris talking about how if only 2000 people bought his $50,000 helicopter, it would be a Billion dollar business. Boy does that sound like wishful thinking...
I'm all for flying cars, but I don't see any mention of how loud or quiet these things are. Cars have been getting quieter all the time, which is a very good thing, especially in densly populated areas.
Just imagine living close to the main road (or flightpath) if every vehicle had the noise of 4 harleys...
Bring on the earplugs and soundproof roofing.
Not gonna happen for one simple reason: Car crashes are terrifying enough on the ground.
I don't want a half ton pickup crashing into my living room. Given that about half the people leaving downtown on a weekend night are driving drunk, it'll quickly become necessary to install SAM (surface to air missile) batteries in the 'burbs to defensively shoot down drunk hicks in big trucks, and drunk 30-somethings in big SUVs.
And if you're a skilled mechanic(on slashdot?)
Hey, I am a skilled mechanic with an A&P and am sure I am not the only one here. There's really not that much difference between being a hacker and being an aircraft mechanic. The aircraft side is a little more phisical but the trouble shooting side is ~ the same.
What about oil use in the production of fertilizer?
What about the need for transporting that food around the globe to areas that can't grow their own food locally?
Essentially humanity is feeding off of oil because of this. How do you reduce demand without reducing the population?
Oh yeah, I do. Feh.
Moller is the greatest long-con artist of all time. Don't even put him in the same category as this WORKING AirScooter, which is doing what Moller has been promising (and not delivering) for 40 years.
Over the years, Moller has taken in something like $40 million dollars in investment money and never produced a working prototype. He's the biggest scam since the travelling snake oil salesman.
"Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."- Steven Wright
At the present rate of oil consumption, which is increasing by the way, the crude oil reserves will be exhausted in about 20 years.
:\
No flame, serious question: do you really believe this - and if so how old are you?
I've heard this exact statement every year for 30 years now. When I was 6 it was scary. When I was 16 I still believed it. When I was 26 I started to call BS. At 36 I just wonder sadly why I didn't learn better critical thinking skills when I was younger.
OTOH, if you don't care whether this is true, but repeat it because cute girls tend to sleep with guys who say stuff like this where you live: more power to you!
In any case - will you still believe this if you hear the exact same thing 20 years from now?
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
It looks like a small helicopter to me. So what's new ?
In the 1950s when helicopters became commonplace, many people already thought that they would replace cars for individual transportation. We know what happened. They didn't even mange to grab a share of recreational flyers.
While I think your analysis is fairly insightful, I disagree with your assertion that the price of oil will slowly rise for decades.
History has shown that when the demand for a critical resource such as electricity or oil exceeds the supply, the price does not rise "slowly". When California experienced electricity shortages, the spot market price went up by a factor of 10 in a matter of months. This is not a slow increase - this is a spike. Crude oil futures were trading on the NYMEX last year at $35/barrel; this year it is $50/barrel. That is an increase of 50% in one year - not what I would call "slow". The problem that many are worried about is that the price of this essential commodity will rise much faster than our ability to replace our cheap-oil-dependent infrastructure with some alternative. This will lead to recession, depression, and possibly crash.
The only thing that can make the price of oil go down is for the demand to decrease faster than the supply is decreasing. However, unless we suddenly come up with some way to make our economy run on something other than petroleum, this means our economy will also decrease as our energy usage decreases. The problem with that scenario is that our economy is not geared to decrease - it can either grow (increase) or crash. There is no middle ground.
I honestly didn't know that the 20 year warning had such an often repeated illustrious history. I've been hearing it only for the last few years.
OTOH, the oil supply is finite, and we can / will / might run out. I suppose that it's largely dependant on how far into the future the human race can actually plan and implement alternatives. From what've seen, our track record isn't all that good.
Seems like we are more likely to run to the last drop and then the innovators try a million different things (thowing crap at the walls, and seeing what the markets allow to stick), settleing the matter for everyone. Of all the attempts only 2% really eng up mattering or work right.
BP brings Thunder Horse online this year, the biggest off-shore field ever. Atlantis comes online next year, which is also quite large. BP has expensive options to drill in offshore areas that the technology to reach won't exist for at least 10 years. Shell and Exxon have placed similar bets. Where's the evidence oil production will fall?
Certainly at some point in the distant future production will begin to decrease, and we will have passed peak oil production. But that will happen because demand begins falling as some better technology replaces oil. Where's the problem?
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
BP brings Thunder Horse online this year, the biggest off-shore field ever. Atlantis comes online next year, which is also quite large. BP has expensive options to drill in offshore areas that the technology to reach won't exist for at least 10 years. Shell and Exxon have placed similar bets.
I take it you refer to the blue spike here...
Take a look at the gap between discovery and consumption here
Hmm...
o r/2004-01-22-kantor_x.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkant
For personal flying vehicles, a helicopter probably is not the most fuel efficient. A gyrocopter or fixed wing would be better.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Well, we suck at planning, no doubt. But we'll switch to something better than oil one day not becuase of some plan to replace oil, but just because the "something" will be better, cheaper, and cleaner. No planning required.
Of course, if oil does start becoming scarce in the next 20 years, it will get so expensive that *lots* of alternatives are cheaper. While that might be painful, we still won't run out of oil, as price always influences demand.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
That's about 40km per litre, or about 3.5 times the fuel efficiency of my Camry.
Of course, not practical every day, but who cares?
dominionrd.blogspot.com - Restaurants on
The CAR (Canadian Air Regulation, I'm assuming an equivilent US law) that says, "no person shall take off from, or attempt to take off from, or land, or attempt to land, from any part of a built-up area or city unless it is an airport or military aerodrome". I have no problem with flying cars, assuming that licensing is done to the current private pilot standards. This is hard, and would make flight unavailable to much of the public, but doing anything less would be a recipe for disaster.
Wow, so these guys are selling the idea that we'll run out of oil in 10 years instead of 20, how novel! :)
The blue spike indeed, but that graph looks like how currently proven deep water oil will play out, assuming no more finds. It looks like the assumption of improving tech not helping has been applied to Russia and the Middle East as well. The assumption that the oil we can prove today is all the oil there is a bit of a reach.
Oil might get expensive as India and China grow demand, but there is a *lot* more oil (already discovered) available at $50/bbl production cost than at $30/bbl. The oil coming out of the Middle East is found and pumped using quite primitive technology (as that's all that's necessary today). With the level of effort the likes of BP put out to find offshore oil, the amount of oil that could be proven in the Mid-East is anyone's guess.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Looks like the concept is flying 'motorcycle.' the market is probably the same as those who would buy personal watercraft.. except this is not quite up to the level of either. The frame is exposed and not even shiny! This may save weight, but it lacks the aesthetic that sea doo, yamaha and harley davidson have established. Also, the seat: a go-cart seat? It will be ready when it's more like a roller-coaster seat than a homemade dune buggy.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
The coolest looking one was the SkyCar, so I looked up more information.
No idea how reliable these are:
Paul Moller and his flying car
His 1974 flying car looked pretty cool, too, from a 1974 perspective. I could see wanting one of those as a teen-ager in the seventies.
Artful Dodger, with Eyes on the Prize
From the Popular Science article:
To their credit, Moller doesn't seem to be trying to hide that in their company history.
I'd love this to be legit, just thirty years late.
Here's roughly the journalistic history regarding flying cars:
* Popular Mechanics (Popular Moronics?), circa 1950: "Flying cars in everybody's driveway by 1980!"
circa 1980: "Flying cars in everybody's driveway by 2000!"
circa 1997: "Flying cars in everybody's driveway by 2020!"
* Slashdot, circa 2000: "Flying cars in everybody's driveway by 2005!"
today, 2005: "Flying cars in everybody's driveway Real Soon Now!"
Uh huh, riiiiiight... and in 20 years, we'll have research bases on Mars and commercial space travel to the moon, I suppose? Oh wait, Popular Mechanics was saying we'd have those too in 2000. And futurists wonder why they aren't taken seriously...
BTW, did anybody actually *look* at the AirScooter? It has no windshield. No roof. No A/C. No radio. No whole-vehicle parachute in case the rotors fail. No storage space for even a briefcase, let alone a weekend's worth of gear. No space for passengers; no space to strap in a baby. Without such things, I absolutely guarantee you it will never be popular with the public, ever. Given its current design, it cannot ever be commercially-viable as private, daily-driver transportation. Its only hope is as a sport plane for the niche market that likes flying but doesn't want to spend a fortune doing it.
And, if you add such things, it adds to the weight, and guess what? Gain too much weight on the plane and eventually you need an FAA-approved pilot's license! Doh. Not to mention that the price of the vehicle increases (which isn't to say that the wealthy wouldn't adopt it first, getting over the hurdle of expensiveness, ushering in economies-of-scale and thereby lowering the cost of production such that more of us in the "masses" can afford them too -- most autos' safety systems have followed exactly this trend. But I don't think it's likely either).
Besides, it's a helicopter in its design (meaning it's exempt from the FAA's recently-implemented "FAA Sport Pilot and Light-Sport Aircraft Rule" on the basis of complexity). For those to ever be widely-used as personal vehicles, there needs to be considerable area around it for takeoff/landing, so the rotors don't kill people. Think you could land one in the width of a car lane in a parking garage? Given the 14' dia. rotors, I don't think so.
The idea of flying cars is damn seductive, but I greatly doubt it's ever going to "take off" in my lifetime (and I've got probably 60-80 years to go); there's too much inertia in the use of gas-powered, land-roaming automobiles and too many dangers and complexities that come with the use of flying cars to make them sufficiently idiot-proof for mass-consumption.
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
The problem with powering the vehicle with alcohol is that you'd try to get to work, and find a bunch of drunks passed out on your front lawn and your tank empty.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
> As an extreme example, consider what kind of gas mileage a glider gets,
Or a bicycle rolling down a hill.
(Granted a glider can spiral up a thermal)
Short-term price spikes, due to political circumstances, natural disasters, wars, changes in OPEC policy, and so on, are always possible. But when it comes to price increases due to our actually running out of oil, there are two possibilities: either we can make fairly good predictions about how long oil supplies will hold out - in which case speculators will buy up oil ahead of time, and the price will gradually rise at a pace related to interest rates - or we cannot predict how long oil supplies will last, in which case anyone who says we will run out of oil in, say, 20 years is making unfounded guesses.
I don't think that the people who are worried about our suddenly running out oil have access to any better information than speculators, or the oil companies themselves - people who are staking their livelihoods on their knowledge of oil supplies - so if can be confidently known that we will run out of oil in the forseeable future, then oil prices will already reflect that fact.
If you don't think oil prices reflect the best available knowledge about future supplies, then I guess you've found yourself a good investment opportunity.
"We're looking for somebody who can fly this plane, and who didn't have fish for dinner."
Less fequent traffic james!?! Haven't you seen the intro to Futurama?
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
For launching without tow, but requiring fuel I have four words for you: Jet Assisted Take Off.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Why would I want to fly slower than I can roll along on the ground? It rather misses the point.
It is different from a traditional tiny helicopter in its much simplified controls (and in the way the flight surfaces are actuated). And since it can legally only hold a maximum of 5 gallons of fuel, they have squeezed some good performance out of it.
I don't know what the vehicle's failure modes and safety features are. If you lose the engine, I am not sure if you can autorotate (or whether you just plummet to your death and have rotor blades flying apart and mincing nearby people and cows).
The sales hype is that since it's an Ultralight aircraft, you can fly it in unrestricted airspace without a pilot's license.
You can't commute in the AirScooter. Ultralight aircraft can only be operated in the daylight (between official sunrise/sunset), by VFR, and in decent weather (no clouds, one mile visibility minimum) -- and only for limited purposes. The regulations say "recreation or sport purposes only". I don't know if, for example, commuting to work would be considered "sport" by the FAA, but I suppose that would depend on how many other AirScooters you were competing with for the airspace. Not what they had in mind, though.
It's worth noting that there is not actually much uncontrolled airspace, unless you live in pretty rural locations. (Never mind class G airspace: you can't operate Ultralights within even the lateral boundaries of class E, which most pilots don't even notice is all over the place.) And in no case can you fly (at any altitude) over towns where people live ("congested area") or over any open-air assembly of people. So unless you have a really huge back yard, you'll have to go out in the country a little bit.
It has floats and apparently you can land it on the water. Maybe we can get the AirScooter pilots together with the WaveRunner pilots for some real action. (I expect to see this on some Amazingly Stupid Stunts video.)
Despite all the limitations, it looks like a pretty darn fun toy. I want one!
As an extreme example, consider what kind of gas mileage a glider gets, even counting whatever gas is used to tow (or propel, for a motor-glider) it to altitude. Compare that to an SUV with under-inflated tires.
It's fundamentally silly to DIRECTLY compare the milage of two vehicles whose cargo capacities vary by more than a factor of ten. Let alone requiring only one of them to be self-propelled, AND requiring that same vehicle to be broken.
Your compaision is ridiculous.
Fundamentally, in any sort of SANE comparison a rolling vehicle is ALWAYS going to win. If you make both vehicle weight the same amount and have the same drag coefficient the car is easily going to win.
Life is too short to proofread.
In Europe, where the taxes on oil account for a full ¾ of the costs, people use significantly more fuel efficient cars and in general burn much less oil.
Taxes on petrol in Europe aren't the only factor. Taxes on the vehicles themselves play a part, I don't remember the exact details but larger engines tend to be taxed more - I think it is calculated by displacement, but the number of cylinders may also be part of the calculation too. Thus the popularity of tiny little turbo-charged engines in european cars.
Their web-site mentions nothing to the affect of being a car. I think you all need to stop mentally masturbating to the notion of back to the future style flying cars.
Shit like this has already been around for years, try paragliding Clicky
That is, in a car you're wasting fuel going around hills, mountains, one-way streets, stop lights, etc. No worries about that in an air car. I would say this makes up for a large part of any fuel consumption issues.
Nothing except the risk of death, you mean.
If a hacker told me he had a bad crash last week, I'd be sympathetic. If an aircraft mechanic told me that, I'd probably be
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
It only it were just that the remaining oil was expensive to get out in dollar terms. No, the issue is that it takes energy to extract the oil. For much of the oil that is left behind, the energy cost of extraction exceeds the energy value of the oil extracted. That is a loosing enterprise.
The sky my not be falling... yet.
Their site has some videos of the thing flying, but they never get more than a few feet up. This is a shady demo because the craft never get out of ground effect. Maybe it cant?
Flyign cars have actually been around for quite awhile. I believe the Aerocar was the first, and it came out in the late 40s early 50s. http://www.aerocar.com/ has some information and pictures of the car. It also has some pictures of a sportscar being modified to fly, which is also kindof interesting.
Man, grandparent's joke was so obscure (to a Kentuckian, that is. Thank Providence for Wikipedia.)
>> Moller has acres and acres of pecan trees, which he eats as a staple of his diet
>He should try just eating the nuts, then he wouldn't need so much space for all those trees.
Read the comment...it's eating the trees which slows the aging.
Your very own CWIS, automated defense platform, equipped with depleted uranium rounds to down any crashing jalopy over in your neighbor's yard!
Paul Moller's vehicle has been ready to fly for twenty years, but the DOT and FAA wouldn't OK his "fly-by-wire" (read: "control without mechanical linkages") concept.
for more information on the evolution of inventions.
Fuel could be anything that burns, and ultimately, it will transport people longer distances on LESS fuel. (Although there may be a shortage of crude in the near future, the US has enough coal to produce our needs for about 300 years by gasifying coal. This is NOT an endorsement for fule consumption...since we are talking about a complex set of consequences, including emissions problems, it shouldn't be trivialized.)
It could save a LOT on highway maintenance if it were widely used.
Fuzzy logic and AI could produce vehicles that "flock", which might also be a good approach to take to our airport congestion problems. See http://www.gameai.com/alife.html for basic examples, especially "Boids".
For those familiar with TRIZ, this corresponds with a transition from level 3 to level 4 system, and just might be the crossover to a new system. See http://www.trizexperts.net/evolutionpatterns.htm
Again, I maintain that the problem with this concept is the barriers put up by government regulation, not the quality of the invention at hand.
"The mind works quicker than you think!"
check out http://www.gen-corp.jp/ for a lot more up to date info, it's in japanese, but that shouldn't hinder people around there....
If they are gonna scam someone at least they could do it right.- this is insulting.
--
Registered .sig quotient : 1337
"the crude oil reserves will be exhausted in about 20 years."
That would mean making petrol from coal would be finacially viable, lord knows there is still a lot of coal around.
The end of crude oil doesn't force a shift. It would be good if it did, but it is not guaranteed.
Everything is impossible to do with 100% certainty. To say nothing of drivers keeping their cars on the road.
Anyway, let's perfect computer pilots (for both planes and cars), and it'll be a moot point.
"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
I thought he was referring to the CarterCopter.
No, I don't really think you are correct. Look at the situation. We are already fighting a war over oil. Was that mentioned in econ101?
/. poster talked about first hearing it when he was six, and now in the wisdom of his thirties knew that it was all bullshit. I can't help but ask, after hearing about it for all these years, is he still going to have the audacity to be surprised if he can't get any food at his local big box food store?
...and this is key, CHEAP petroleum products. Look how we have organized the urban sprawl we call our suburbs. Those places that don't even have sidewalks if you wanted to walk. And where to walk? The concept and infrastructure of the corner grocery store has been killed by the Walmart mentality. Everything is miles from a house in a suburb. ...everything except a gas station of course. Those are everywhere. Why did we never build a public transportation system?
I think that really the best scenario we have is one where we gracefully run out of oil in 20 years. I don't personally think it is going to be that pretty though. 70% of the remaining oil in the world is located in places where the people don't reallly like americans all that much. At the same time america is totally, and single mindedly, fixated on changing nothing about how they live.
Yes, I agree with one point that you make. Americans have been hearing for years that oil is going to run out. Another old sage of a
America is totally based on not just on petroleum products, but,
Sure, you can get lettuce in Wisconsin in February, but will you still be able to if gas spikes to $10 a gallon? I don't think so. It just doesn't work anymore. But with gas here at $2.75 I am still seeing plenty of Hummers on the road. Do these people care about gas prices? Not really. They have money to burn. The trouble is they are burning it at a rate that is going to really piss off a lot of poor people, who are becoming more poor when they can't get to work in their cars anymore. No, they can't afford gas, but bullets might not cost much more than they do now. How is that for a thought?
America should have been planning ahead. Should have been spending it's billions of military dollars on planning it's long term future. Instead, we have postured to steal when we have been too stupid to think our way out of dependancy. We have no public transportation system, our rail system has fallen to disrepair, our agricultural system in most of the country depends on petroleum based fertilizer, and petroleum based irrigation systems.
I think the next few years will be ones of great change. Like I said toward the begining, I do hope you are correct, I do hope we spiral down. I just happen to doubt it.
--rainbird
http://www.iburncorn.com
Given that a fiscally conservative governemnt should, by nature, intervene in or assist with the population's energy needs, our government is taking a proactive stance to reduce dependence on expensive foreign energy.
Bush announced [http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/] $1.2 billion in federal grants to fuel cell programs in his 2003 SOTU Address so that we could lessen our dependence on foreign oil.
According to http://costofwar.com/, we Americans have supported Bush in spending $163.9 billion to destroy and rebuild Iraq since 2003.
That is, if anyone's interested in giving less money to people who have been granted the rights to profits from Earth's natural resources. Whether 2020 is a conservative estimate or not, anyone even contemplating further industrialization should recognize that we're treating oil like diamonds: overvalued for lack of an equally well marketed alternative.
So should we go long or short on Exxon and BP?
Not very good -- where are you going to get enough vegetable oil to power a society? Farming (at least with present methods) uses more energy than it could ever hope to produce.
In terms of energy, we're like a kid who inherited a big fortune and is about halfway through spending it all. Let's hope we can learn a decent way to earn more before the inheritance runs out!
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
In a scenario where oil is too expensive to purchase for use as fuel, I don't see much practical difference between that and having "run out of oil". In either case, oil is no longer usable as an energy source, and we will have either (a) found an alternative energy source, or (b) had to learn to do without mechanization.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
That ain't no flying car. This is a flying car.
(Sorry 'bout the anonymous link. It's quite legit though - you can click your way through to it from here if you prefer.)
Be faithful to your obsessions. Identify them and be faithful to them, let them guide you like a sleepwalker. JG Ballard
Most SUVs I see driving down the highway aren't carrying any more cargo (including passengers) than a Cessna 172 is capable of carrying. Or even a C-152, for that matter. And those aren't exactly state of the art in light aircraft design. Most SUVs are only carrying the driver and a bag or briefcase, and maybe one passenger.
I'm comparing real land vehicles with real aircraft. You're the one who wants to create artificial comparisons by requiring that both vehicles weigh the same and have the same drag coefficient. Heck, I'll even stipulate properly inflated tires on the SUV, the aircraft will still get better mileage.
-- Alastair
It's a physics based fact that keeping a mass, such as an air car, airborne consumes more energy than a ground based rolling car.
;-)
So it does, but consider that an aircraft 1) doesn't need to weigh as much as the car for safety, 2) can travel a much more direct route to its destination, and 3) will spend far less time in transit.
Then add in the costs of road construction, plus the fact that you usually have a couple of fatalities in the morning and evening commute of any mid-sized american city, and the sky cars actually come out ahead economically.
The problem is bootstrapping. The first one's going to cost a bundle. The next thousand will cost less, and when we get to a point where they're being built by the millions, then kids will get them for their sixteenth birthdays.
What's going to make it all feasible, is giving up piloting, and letting them fly not only by wire, but by peer negotiation of collision avoidance, and computer stabilization. We'll get there, we just need to develop the software
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
From what I can make out this is a fixed pitch design with the lift being controlled by engine speed. When the engine fails you would fall from the sky, even if it had the ability to perform an autorotation this is a manoever (can never spell that) which is more difficult than anything involved in driving a car.
I'm comparing real land vehicles with real aircraft. You're the one who wants to create artificial comparisons by requiring that both vehicles weigh the same and have the same drag coefficient.
That's simple common sense!
All you're doing in deliberately skewing the results by demanding that one vehicle be operated inefficiently while the other is not.
It's ridiculous to compare a bus with one passenger to a Cessna with one passenger, or a 747 with 4 people to a Honda Civic with four people. It's a bullshit comparison and you know it.
Fundamentally, flying is less energy efficient. It's the basic physics of the problem. All else being equal, energy must be expended to suppurt the full weight of the airplane, while a car must overcome only a small fraction of it's weight in rolling resitance.
Life is too short to proofread.
What do you mean by energy? Of course farming produces more energy than is consumed by machinery. The sun provides most of the power. Not to mention there is more energy per molecule of glucose then there is in TNT. If there wasn't we wouldn't have 5 billion people. (the glucose vs. TNT is flame bait, don't fall for it.) Also when you refer to energy please take note of the second law of thermodynamics. Also vegtable oil doesn't need to be a complete replacement -- and it was jus an example -- methanol, ethanol, ethane, polystyrene, polyvinylchloride, blah, blah, blan could all be starting material. Even the remains of dead animals and people. The number of compounds that could be used as starters to make isooctane is nearly endless.
I tend to agree. I would add that people often forget how much we depend on oil for manufacturing. So many materials are derived from petroleum.. plastics, adhesives, etc. We may be able to find other sources of energy (nuclear->electricity->compressed liquid nitrogen), but we don't have a good infrastructure substitute for petroleum in manufacturing (think: paving roads, PC cases...).
Knowledge is like ignorance.. too much can be just as bad as not enough.
Some kind of computer system... or net-work, perhaps...for keeping an eye on the sky and keeping the sky safe for personal flyers? Like a Skynet of some kind?
That's it, if we're giving MIT prizes to scientists who are helping the Machines, what's the point of going on? I say we find this guy, and get Linda Hamilton to take him out. It's the only way to be sure.
yes. that's all I'm going to say in all comments from now on.
I see that you were referring to a different aircraft. I was referring to the CarterCopter. My mistake.
No, what you're saying is "assume a spherical cow..."
-- Alastair
Farming conceivably could be used as a way to capture solar power, but from all I've read, current farming methods use much more fuel (to make fertilizer, power the tractors, transport the product, create and apply pesticides, etc) than can be practically extracted from the resulting crops.
Perhaps more efficient farming and extraction techniques will someday change that, but I'm not holding my breath.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
You have not been paying attention. Farming for biodiesel and methanol are both energy-positive these days, and have been for some time. In both cases it was mostly just crop selection. Vegetable oil is a step on the road to biodiesel from plants, so if biodiesel is energy positive, veggie should be even better.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"