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."

Comments

Skycar

[dsginter]

Moller Skycar Info.

Re:Skycar

[Issue9mm]

Mr. Moller's been building flying cars since forever ago. I saw his cameo on "Invent This!", and he had relatively working prototypes of various models of flying cars in the 60s and 70s.

Really, it's quite amazing what he's accomplished, and has to be the first to market on these things. I can only wonder why it's never "taken off" (pun only slightly intended.)

I want to say I've heard him mention that being the first to market on something so "seemingly" dangerous was his downfall, but I could be misquoting.

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.)

-9mm-

Re:Fuel Efficiency and Oil Dependence

[ray-auch]

From the article, the engine is only 65hp, so fuel consumption may be better than some cars.

It also says 2hrs flight time, 55knots (approx 60mph), on 5 gallons. That is >20mpg, which would definitely be better than the worst SUVs.

Re:yeah Yeah, anyrthing but PR buzz?

[Geoff-with-a-G]

If you can't be troubled to RTFA, at least read the summary.

It's mostly about Norris' "AirScooter", NOT Moller's Skycar, and Norris DID demo the AirScooter, with a 60 minute flight in front of press.

It may not be in a dealership near you yet, but it really does fly, it's not vapor.

Re:Whenever they please?

[anthony_dipierro]

What about the people whose houses these things are going to fall on when people without the skills required for a current private pilots license decide that "whenever they please" means during thunderstorms or when the clouds are generating ice or when the wind is gusting to 90 knots?

Most likely you'll need a license and insurance in order to operate these things. In fact, mandatory insurance makes even more sense for these things then it does for cars. It's pretty easy to keep a car on the road. Keeping a plane in the sky is impossible to do with 100% certainty, no matter how skilled you are.

Not necessarily - future fuel will be a problem

[Steffan]

"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"

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.

Re:At what price though?

[MikeBabcock]

Last year the story ran about a $30k personal helicopter.

Re:Headline is wrong

[AJWM]

How are they going to prevent people from flying over private property?

They're not. At 500 feet above the highest obstacle, (1000 feet over a built up area), the skies are open (subject to air traffic regs). If you don't want people flying over your property, you'll have to apply to the FAA to declare your property restricted airspace. Good luck.

(Below the above altitudes, you can report such aircraft to the FAA, unless they're on approach to or departure from an airport.)

(Oh, and if you feel like just putting up a 500 foot tower to raise the "floor", better make sure you've got approval, lest the FAA declare it a hazard to navigation and make you take it down.)

Re:Skycar - future fuel will be a problem

[Torontoman]

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.

Re:400 feet but it goes to 10k!

[Greyfox]

Not to mention that you kind of need a pilot's license to know where the non-restricted airspace is. From what I recall (It's been a while since I dabbled) 1 mile from municipal airports and up to 25 or 30 from an international airports require you to follow direction from air traffic control. That means that among other things you have to ask permission to enter the airspace and turn if you don't get it before you cross over or are denied. Certain classes of aircraft are simply not allowed in certain classes of airspace. I know this because my hang glider instructor misunderstood the regulations and landed at the Wilmington International Airport once and had to file some "Mea Culpa it Won't Happen Again" paperwork with the FAA over it. If that'd happened AFTER 9/11 he probably would have been arrested.

It's even worse when you're flying a powered aircraft, especially in crowded airspace. Not only are you navigating in 3 dimensions (Which actually is pretty easy to get used to) but you have to keep an eye out for other vehicles up to two or three MILES off and above or below you and follow air traffic control's instructions when they tell you to do something. Overall the amount of bullshit you have to put up with makes the occasional speed trap on the ground look pretty inviting.

In the end, the flying car experience will be a lot different from what most people imagine. I wouldn't be surprised if the only way it would be allowed would be with a computer controlled navigation system that had no allowance for manual override. Some people might opt to move up to pilots licenses for a craft they could manually control, but that would be about the equivalent of a CB radio enthusiast moving up to a ham license -- most people won't want to and it will bring as many new restrictions as it does newfound freedom.

Re:Ok, I'll define it

[Anonym1ty]

A few people are sloppy and let couple refer to the "few", meaning, but most people prefer the definition referring to a pair.

Some are sloppier than others - depends on which one. No one will argue what a dozen means, most people ar clueless about a peck... couple, & few depend on who you are talking to. Not to mention some words have always had two meanings... one being ambiguous

1/10 = gry
1 = single
2 = couple
3 = few
4 = gang
5 = punch
6 = half dozen
7 = several
8 = peck / basket
9 = bunch
10 = carton / minyan
11 = short dozen
12 = dozen
13 = long dozen / baker's dozen
14 = fort
16 = kenning / half bushel
20 = score
24 = case
32 = bushel
144 = gross
1728 = great gross