Neiman Marcus Offers First Moller Skycar For Sale

It doesn't come easy writes "Neiman Marcus has just unveiled its 2005 Christmas Catalog of Fantasy Gifts last Tuesday, and one of the items up for purchase is the prototype M400 Skycar from Moller International (for only $3.5 million US). If you've ever dreamed of owning a Skycar, this may be your only chance." From the Skycar site: "Can any automobile give you this scenario? From your garage to your destination, the M400 Skycar can cruise comfortably at 350+ MPH and achieve up to 28 miles per gallon. No traffic, no red lights, no speeding tickets. Just quiet direct transportation from point A to point B in a fraction of the time. Three dimensional mobility in place of two dimensional immobility. No matter how you look at it the automobile is only an interim step on our evolutionary path to independence from gravity. That's all it will ever be. "

Comments

it's a ringer

[DragonTHC]

looks like the US NAVY's skycar prototypes from the 1960's

Nice.

[Tavor]

But did it ever win it's FAA cert?

Re:Nice.

[ldspartan]

Not even a little. As far as I know, that particular model has never flown untethered.

Moller's been talking about Skycars as long as I've been alive. As far as I know, its always been "less than five years away" for the past 20 or so. He also really likes talking about his "highway in the sky", which is essentially... run of the mill avionics.

And really, given the number of accidents on the highway-on-the-ground where folks only have to worry about two dimensions, I'm glad he's been a failure thus far. At least accidents on the highway don't usually come flying into my house.

--
lds

Re:Nice.

[Concerned Onlooker]

And really, given the number of accidents on the highway-on-the-ground where folks only have to worry about two dimensions, I'm glad he's been a failure thus far.

On the other hand, if people had to go through as much training to get a driver's license as they do a pilot's license the roads would probably be a better place.

I was certified to fly gliders only after many hours of instruction that included emergency situations as well as learning how to give myself large safety margins. Just the thinking process of getting my pilot's license caused me to really evaluate my driving habits as well.

As long as the license to fly a Skycar didn't end up being some sort of quickie certification you might not see as many problems as you think. Most of the truly boneheaded won't make it far enough to get the license to fly. Then again, I had some great instruction from people who loved to fly and weren't just putting in their 9 to 5 time.

Re:Nice.

[Anonymous Coward]

And really, given the number of accidents on the highway-on-the-ground where folks only have to worry about two dimensions, I'm glad he's been a failure thus far.

On a typical two-lane road, you have a corridor around 12-15 feet wide to maneuver in; in the air, your maneuvering room extends several thousand feet over the entire surface of the earth. Do you really think that accidents are going to be a problem?

Re:Nice.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've seen people get into accidents in parking lots because they put their car in drive instead of park. Never underestimate the ability of people to screw up.

Re:Nice.

[jcr]

And really, given the number of accidents on the highway-on-the-ground where folks only have to worry about two dimensions

This is actually the strongest argument for going to aircars. Today, we funnel traffic into very narrow passages, where vehicles pass each other in opposite directions at very high speed, with nothing more than a few feet of separation and a couple of painted lines to prevent head-on collisions. The FAA considers it a near-collision when two aircraft pass within a thousand feet of each other. It's pretty rare to be a thousand feet away from the nearest car on a highway in the daytime, at least where I live.

If we took to the skies, 1) there's a lot more room, 2) the trip itself can take minutes instead of hours, and 3) concentration of population will be reduced, which contributes to 1).

When you account for the cost of building roads, as well as the fact that fatalities are routine for every major city rush-hour commute, air cars could actually end up saving us money. Four-lane highways can easily cost over a million dollars a mile. If we switched to air cars for people, and only used roads for freight, most of the interstate system could be two-lane roads.

-jcr

Re:Nice.

[Keruo]

> On the other hand, if people had to go through as much training to get a driver's license as they do a pilot's license the roads would probably be a better place.

> I was certified to fly gliders only after many hours of instruction that included emergency situations as well as learning how to give myself large safety margins. Just the thinking process of getting my pilot's license caused me to really evaluate my driving habits as well.

How long does it take to get a drivers license in US, and how expensive it is?

Here in Finland, if you're 18 or older, you can get a license. The process is split in two phases, first phase consists of 10 x 1,5 hours of theory and 10 x 1h driving lessons.
Then there's written exam including traffic situation pictures, and finally driving test. If you pass both tests, you get temporary license which is valid for 1-2 years.
(don't recall if the hours are accurate, I've had my drivers license for several years now)

If you manage to drive 1-2 years without too many mistakes (3-strike system, if you fail, you have to do first phase again) you can start second phase.
In second phase, you have few more theory hours, 5 or so, mostly about driving in dark and on slippery surfaces. Some of the theory also focuses on driving more economically. There's practice run on slippery surface track and basically training for driving on icy surfaces. After completing the second phase, you receive your final drivers license which is valid until you turn 70. After that age, you need to take medical and with doctors approval, the license can be extended.

The whole thing costs about $1200-2000, depending on the driving school, more if you fail any of the tests.

Re:Nice.

[malelder]

In the U.S. it can be different depending on state...at least Arizona and Georgia are different. I think in all states, you can get a license at 16. In Arizona, you have to pass a written test, which is based on a small pamphlet of driving information, definately not very hard. You then have to drive around with someone who grades you on mistakes...I don't remember this being a big deal, although I failed it the first time because I didn't turn my turn signals on far enough back before the actual turn. The second time, I made sure to turn them on about 50 yards before each turn (; There is a drivers education class in the high schools (all, as far as i know), but i don't think it was mandatory. Mine was definately worthless. You can get a learners permit at age 15 1/2, but that wasn't necessary either. Once you get a license, you used to keep it until you were 65 (which sucks now that I dont have one...I always wanted to get pulled over at age 65 with a license that had my picture at age 25), now I think it only lasts 10 years.

In Georgia, according to my about-to-drive nephew, you have to have a learning permit for a year and a day before getting a license, in which they assume you pick up at least 30 hours of driving practice. They offer a lot of driving classes (I've seen quite a few private businesses that teach driving stuff), but it is optional. The Georgia license lasts 10 years.

Just found out that Virginia has a license age of 17, and in two years it will go up to 18. Insurance rates are headed down there because of this.

Since most driving classes are offered by the public schools, there isn't a cost associated with them...not sure about the private classes. I think the license itself was only around 35 dollars in AZ...I know it was only 35 for my new Georgia license, and since I had an AZ one already, I didn't have to take any test (oh, had a 5 second eye exam)..they just switched things over.

Re:Nice.

[tricorn]

To add to the previous response, a lot of states have 15 1/2 as the age at which you can get a learner's permit, then 16 to get a driver's license - to get your license before age 18, you have to have passed a driver's education course (usually through your high school). After age 18, you don't even need that. Then you have to pass the (simple - half an hour's study will do it) written test, and take a driving test. Unless you take it when there's ice on the road, you don't have to demonstrate any particular skills, just normal driving in traffic, obeying signs, signaling, parallel parking and not killing or seriously endangering anyone. Probably doesn't even include driving on the freeway. License is then good for 4 years, renewal generally is just an eye test ("No, dear, are you sure that's an 8? Doesn't it look more like an S? It's an S? That's RIGHT! Good, you pass!"), although more states are adding in requirements for driving tests after age 70 or so. Moving to a new state, you can usually get a license on the basis of your previous license.

Re:Nice.

[Vexar]

For reference, Moller's been trying to get around this whole accident thing by having his little Jetsonesque sky hoppers entirely computer-piloted, so that the craft are driver-less. This, unfortunately, reminds me of the "Johnny-Car" vehicles in Total Recall. My Dad knew this guy 30 years ago, in graduate school at UC Davis. He said Moller's on what is known as white-collar welfare, or government research/private investor dollars for the scientists who refuse to work in the real world. I point to the VentureStar space plane project as perhaps the greatest white-collar welfare project: an abysmal failure costing tens of billions of dollars.

Re:Nice.

[tdemark]

On a typical two-lane road, you have a corridor around 12-15 feet wide to maneuver in; in the air, your maneuvering room extends several thousand feet over the entire surface of the earth. Do you really think that accidents are going to be a problem?

If trained and certified pilots can get into midair collisions, I think it would be safe to say that most Joe Autodrivers don't really stand a chance.

Re:Nice.

[cloudmaster]

$25 to $35 and an afternoon of skimming a pamphelt, taking a written test, and doing some very basic driving in town will get you driving legally for 4-5 years if you're over 18. If you're 16 to 18, some tates are doing a "you can only drive during daylight, maybe with a limit on the number of passengers in the car" thing, some ar not.

The US does have some "performance driving schools", like, two or three, which have courses along the lines of "advanced street driving" to "driving small Formula cars". It usually costs around $1000+ to take those courses, and gains you nothing legally - ie, even after certifying that you're not the worst driver on the road, you still have to obey the inane restrictions put in place because our low requirements for licenses (it's a right, not a priviliedge) allow some really bad drivers to be on the road.

Re:Nice.

[Shajenko42]

License is then good for 4 years, renewal generally is just an eye test ("No, dear, are you sure that's an 8? Doesn't it look more like an S? It's an S? That's RIGHT! Good, you pass!")

Heh. They weren't that leinient with me when I did my eye test. My right eye is just bad enough that I can't read things that are a moderate distance away if my left eye is closed - a very slight fuzziness.

It's the only reason I wear glasses.

Re:Nice.

[Firethorn]

The problem you still have in a urban area is runway/landing space. These cars are not VTOL, or even STOL*.

Personally, I think that a small car computer controlled captive rail system would work better for urban areas. You don't even need gas then, because they're powered by electricity from the grid. The rail makes computer control easy as it limits parameters. Otherwise known as PRT. Bonus: It's not 'five years away'. There are test tracks built, actual construction could start within a year for a simple line/loop. A proper grid would take longer, but then, look at how long paving a city would take from scratch.

Bennies: You'd soon have businesses paying to have stations put right into their buildings. You'd only have to walk to the closest station to be able to walk right into the mall, hospital, many stores and office complexes, etc...

*Short TakeOff/Landing.

Re:Nice.

[birge]

The question is: is the highway safety record in Finland so much better than the US's that it justifies treating every adult like a mentally retarded infant and costing so much money that could otherwise be put to more productive use? I'm seriously asking. I'd say anything over about 20% improvement would justify it. Cars kill a lot of people.

Re:Nice.

[RadioTV]

All of this is different by state. In Indiana it is pretty complicated depending on if you are taking drivers education.

If you are taking drivers education (either a private company in larger cities or the local high school in more rural areas) you can get your permit at 15 1/2 and you can get your license at 16 an one month. You will get 40 hours of classroom instruction, 10 hours of driving time with an instructor and 20 hours of riding with other students while they are getting their driving instruction (normally this is done with three students and one instructor in a car with at least dual break pedals and sometimes with complete dual controls). If you get a C or better in the written and driving phases of drivers ed you go to the license branch and take a written test but you get to skip a test drive with a state examiner. When I had drivers education as summer classes at my high school (15 years ago) it cost $150. I had to pay $5 for the permit and then I had to pay $7.50 for the license.

If you are not going to take drivers you can get a learners permit at the age of 16. With this permit you can drive with a relative that is over the age of 18. At the age of 16 1/2 you can take a written test and a check ride with a state examiner. It costs 5 dollars for the permit and $7.50 for the license plus $20 for the time with the examiner.

Re:Nice.

[Hangin10]

In Illinois high schools, driver's ed is a graduation requirement, and
it's only expensive if taken during summer school ($200ish).

Permit at 15, license at 16. Can only have one other non-family member in
the car for 6months. Need 25h of driving logged w/licensed driver over 21 to
get license at 16. At 18, none of the above applies, can just take a
written and then the driving test (which isn't hard).

Re:Nice.

[techfury90]

Here in NC, you have to complete driver's education in order to obtain a permit or license under the age of 18. No exceptions. Pretty much every high school here though offers it free (maybe its required by law to offer it?). When I had it at my high school, it was 30 hours of classroom time, and 6 hours of driving time. At my school you had to be at least 14.5 to take it, and to get your permit you must be 15 and have proof that you took driver's education. You can get your license after one year of having a permit. I believe it was $15 to get mine, there was just a simple signs test, a 35 question multiple choice test (you can miss up to 5 questions, I missed 2 or 3, it was pretty easy if you ask me) and a vision test. When you want to get your license, you simply just have to prove that you can do various road manuevers with a DMV employee in the car with you. Now if you're 18, you can just get your license if you can pass the tests (no driver's ed required). You can also say that you won't be able to pass the driving part, and get a permit then (or so I'm told, my permit expires on my 18th birthday though).

Re:Nice.

[techfury90]

Forgot to add, for the first 6 months you have your permit, you're only able to drive from 5am-9pm. Its similar for the first 6 months of your license if you're under 18, except you can only have up to two non-family passengers with you.

Re:Nice.

[tyler_larson]

How long does it take to get a drivers license in US, and how expensive it is?

The requirements vary by locality, and are getting more restrictive as time goes by. However, when I got my driver's licence, I only had to pass the written test and the "drive arount the block with a DMV guy" practical test. Total cost was negligable. Total experience required was laughable.

Note that making license acquisition even moderately expensive or difficult is a very politally-charged proposition. Leftists tend to argue that a driver's license is required in order to conduct normal day-to-day business, and therefore is a right, not a priviledge. Making license acquisition out-of-reach for the "bottom" of society--those with less resources and less opportunity for proper training--impinges on the rights of these individuals and is an unacceptable form of discrimination.

When I got my pilot's licence, on the other hand, it was after 41.5 hours of flight time (I learn very fast, the national average is 60 to 80 hours before they can perform maneuvers within FAA standards), at a cost of around $4000. Once again, the average cost is closer to $6000-$8000 dollars. The requirements also include a written exam (a REAL test, not the hokey crap you do with the DMV), an oral test, and a practical test. Only the first hour or two of training is spent explaining "how to fly." The rest is spent learning how to safely handle every situation you can possibly get yourself into (of which there are plenty, by the way).

Along with your license, you need a current medical release signed by an FAA approved doctor, which needs to be updated as often as every 6 months or as seldom as every 3 years (depending on age and what type of flying you do). And of course, there's recurring training that must be accomplished every 2 years. Beyond that, there's requirements about flying you must have done within the past X months in order to carry passengers in various situations.

None of this includes instrument or commercial ratings, either, and is only valid for the specific category of aircraft that you trained in.

So, in order to fly, you have to really know what you're doing. The requirements are strict because the stakes are high. If drivers were required to reach pilot standards before getting their license, only 10-20% at best would ever make it, and accidents would be so rare that fender-benders would make the news. Roads would be extremely safe, the automobile industry would crumble, and mass transit would be the norm, rather than the exception.

Re:Nice.

[Ironsides]

Kansas Driving Rules

Probably has the lowest age in the country, due to farm driving licenses. (Think tractors)

Re:Nice.

[modecx]

Personally, I think driver's licenses should not be awarded to new drivers unless they pass a course involving 15 hours of driving a go-kart with an instructor shouting at them through their helmet-radio (simulating a cell phone conversation), and random objects moving about the track, from simulated squirrels to kids with a ball.

The last phase of the class includes a (simulated) go-kart-driving chainsaw-murderer, so you have to run away from him, with the instructor simulating 3 children in the back seat over the radio, and the simulated squirrels running out in front of you... You lose points if you run over the squirrels or get caught by the chainsaw-murderer. Screw the mini-formula stuff; we need to teach people how to drive in real-life situations!

Re:Nice.

[focitrixilous P]

In Minnesota, you can get your learners permit at age 15 after 30 hours of instruction through a driving school, a cost of 200-300 dollars, though none of that is how to actually drive a car. It's mostly worthless, lots of videos of second tier celebrities telling you not to drink and drive. Then, review the packet of laws they gave you and take a half hour test, if the line is short. That cost 18 dollars a few years back. Then, after 6 hours instruction in car (mine was 3 sessions) on basic driving, downtown city, and then highway, and you can take the full test the day you turn 16. That costs 20-30, I don't remember. After that you can drive without restrictions, though recently you cannot be on a cell phone while the vehicle is in motion until age 18. Insurance costs usually skyrocket after that, as young people are notorious for smashing cars into trees and other cars. (My Father crashed his Dad's car before getting out of the alley where it was parked, the first weekend he had his license, while my Grandpa was out of town. He spent the whole weekend thinking about running away from home.) I wish they would extend that to age 100, but that seems unlikely as almost everyone but me does it.

Re:Nice.

[foniksonik]

In Soviet Russia, Car licenses you!

No really, in California it takes $25 to get a license. You take a multiple choice test, if you miss more than x questions (when I took it the number was 8) you fail. If you pass, you schedule a driving test and go out with a test admin in your car, which must have up to date Registration and Insurance (actually it can be your parents car or your friends). If you get more than 3 points marked against you you fail. If you fail the driving portion 3 times you have to wait 3 months, then retake the 'written test' and driving test.

Most importantly though, you must have proof of personal liability insurance, which for teens is rather expensive.

There is no requirement for taking driving lessons if you're over 18 but if you do, you get a % discount on insurance (which makes that perosn you hit and injure later very grateful of course). If you're 16+ but not 18 you have to take lessons which costs around $300 but are pretty lame (here's the gas pedal, break pedal, use turn signals, buckle up.. now drive).

So really, it's rather cheap to get a license if you do well the first time around... it's the car + insurance that costs money here.

Re:Nice.

[rayvd]

Once you get a license, you used to keep it until you were 65 (which sucks now that I dont have one...I always wanted to get pulled over at age 65 with a license that had my picture at age 25), now I think it only lasts 10 years.

Wonder when they changed this. I moved from Cali to Arizona a couple years ago (now back in Cali) and was tickled pink when they handed me a new AZ drivers license good til like 2045 just for showing them my valid Cali drivers license. :-)

When I moved back to California, the DMV here made me hand it over :(

Still haven't had to take any written tests for renewals since I was 16 (now 27).

Re:Nice.

[BerntB]

is the highway safety record in Finland so much better than the US's that it justifies treating every adult like a mentally retarded infant

They don't. They treat new drivers like that, because they are "error prone". It is just age fascism like not letting people buy beer before X years of age. (-: Age fascism against young people is good, it's bad against us old.. :-)

Other groups that are error prone are alcohol/drug users and really old people. They are kept in check everywhere.

Cars kill a lot of people.

The Finns have a similar (probably a little better) system than us in Sweden. Here we get a little less than 500 dead/year on a population of 9 millions. USA has about 30 times the population, which gives an expected 15,000 dead/year to be as good/bad.

Some googling gave 44,800 for 2003. Wikipedia gave 42,643 for 2003. About three times 15,000 -- but your petrol haven't 200% tax added...

IMHO, the main numerical problem is not the number of dead but the "30 times population" bit.

In many cases, USA can't use the same solutions as smaller countries, because the implementing problem scales more than linearly with the population. Then, the jury is still out if many of EU solutions work here. :-(

Re:Nice.

[Anonymous Coward]

It depends on how you measure it. If you measure it as 'deaths per passenger mile', the US is safer than any other nation, including Finland. But if you measure it as 'deaths per citizen per year', it isn't, because Americans drive soooo much more than most people in Europe. By that measure, some European countries as twice as safe.

Re:Nice.

[jdray]

With a few insignificant detail changes, that's about the situation here in Oregon. Optional driver's permit at 15 (minor right of passage), written test only. At 16 or thereafter, a written test (which is waived for current permit holders) and a functional test (drive around with an examiner for 20 minutes, waived for holders of licenses from other states) gets you a license, valid for eight years (?). Teenagers start counting months until they're able to drive about the time they turn 13, even though a lot don't actually get their license the first time until they're 18 or older due to high insurance rates.

Re:Nice.

[Agent__Smith]

"You can get a learners permit at age 15 1/2, but that wasn't necessary either. Once you get a license, you used to keep it until you were 65 (which sucks now that I dont have one...I always wanted to get pulled over at age 65 with a license that had my picture at age 25), now I think it only lasts 10 years."

Last time I checked, in Arizona your license is still good until you are 65. If you get your license before the age of 21 it will not be good that long. In that case you will have to come in after the age of 21 to renew it. The physical license itself even looks different before the age of 21. If you have kept your nose clean and not had any tickets, it will not require any additional testing, just a fee and new picture. In fact if you have a change of address or loose your license you can go online and order another one without even going into the DMV office. One thing of note, the learners permit only allows you to drive during daylight hours and only if you have another licensed driver in the automobile with you.

Motorcycles require a special endorsement with a seperate written test, and evaluation on a test track.

Re:Nice.

[birge]

Everybody at some point is a new driver, so Finland's system does treat everybody like a complete idiot at some point, and it costs a lot of money. It's different than a drinking age. In fact, there is a driving age. If you're old enough to drive, however, there's no reason to be assumed to be a complete idiot. If you really need three years to be considered worthy of full driving rights, nobody should drive.

Anyway, I'd be willing to have every American treated like a complete idiot, including the concommitant further decline of our ability to take responsibility for ourselves, if it would save a significant number of lives. However, I still think the jury is out on that. You don't need to normalize by the number of people in each country, but by the total number of miles driven. Given the significantly larger size of America, and our sparser population, I'd guess we drive a heck of a lot more than they do in Finland, so I imagine our accident rate per mile is not as different as it looks. Maybe we should raise the driving age, though. :-)

Re:Nice.

[Fishsticks]

It wasn't terribly difficult for me in Ohio. If I remember correctly, you could get a temp permit at 15 and a half (you could only drive if a licensed parent over 21 or a driving instructor was in the passenger seat) and you had to have that permit for a minimum of 6 months, during which you had to do 50 hours of driving, 10 of which were at night. You also had to have driving school, which the high schools around my home didn't offer so you had to go to a private driving school which was about $225 for some lessons, and 8 hours of driving with th instructor. After the 6 months you could go for a drive around the block driving test at the BMV, as well as a rediculously easy written test* and you'd have your license. There were also some BMV fees for the permit and the licence but I don't remember them being very high. I believe the requirements were a lot lower if you were over 18 when you tried to get your license. *It was a multiple choice exam with like 20 questions. I remember one question in particular showed a picture of a Yield sign and asked what it meant, and one of the choices was "Low-flying aircraft." I was almost tempted to choose that answer, since you only needed 75% on the exam to pass or something like that.

Re:Nice.

[jcr]

These cars are not VTOL, or even STOL*.

Yes, they are. Moller's test flights to date have all been hovering tests.

-jcr

Re:Nice.

[macdaddy357]

If you pimped out that ride with some neon lights, especially if they were chasers, imagine all the UFO sightings you could cause. That would be fun!

Re:Nice.

[BerntB]

Finland's system does treat everybody like a complete idiot at some point, and it costs a lot of money. It's different than a drinking age. In fact, there is a driving age. If you're old enough to drive, however, there's no reason to be assumed to be a complete idiot.

To not be allowed access to cars or alcohol is not to be treated like an idiot? Let me guess, you think forcing someone to have a pass to go around in a school is ok, because it is just for young people? :-)

This in a country with notes on coffee mugs that the content might be hot?? :-)

I am sorry, but I can't see a difference between the two cases -- except your local traditions. (I should say that I had a different viewpoint when I was younger.)

Given the significantly larger size of America, and our sparser population

Finland (and Sweden) has lower population density (check cia world factbook). The number of driven km/capita is probably higher in the US, but I doubt it is a factor of three.

To do social engineering, examine number of deaths, consider age and remaining work life, number of relatives and their suffering, costs, etc. The people planning public roads do those kinds of calculations, because you know that more expensive roads will mean fewer accidents. They literally set a price on a traffic causality.

Re:Nice.

[damiam]

The US has a helluva lot more than "two or three" performance driving schools. It's probably closer to two or three hundred.

Re:Nice.

[birge]

Requiring a course of study that takes almost as long as college to do something as simple as driving a car is overkill, and tantamount to an insult to the citizens of Finland, if you ask me. It's also a waste of money and symptomatic of a overly intrusive government. It's exactly the kind of mentality that leads my stupid country to put warnings on mugs. So I agree with you completely that we have similar problems, and just different traditions about how those problems manifest.

I think it's very telling that despite Finland's required bachelors degree in driving, and with all its expense, America is actually a safer place to drive. (Another poster pointed out that per mile America is the safest in the world.) It also goes to show that people's attitudes and sense of responsibility is more important than anything overreaching government could possibly do. I've been to Europe enough to see that the attitudes of the citizens about driving is pretty abysmal. For all our faults, Americans seen to drive pretty well, and that's obviously not a function of our government taking that responsibility for us.

For what it's worth, when *I* was young I used to be liberal and think like you. :-)

Re:Nice.

[BerntB]

Requiring a course of study that takes almost as long as college to do something as simple as driving a car is overkill

(-: Uh, how many work hours is college in US? I thought the education system was better after high school?! :-)

Re:Nice.

[Anonymous Coward]

> Another poster pointed out that per mile America is the safest in the world

That was me, a lowly AC. I've seen multiple references for this but the only one I can immediately locate is here - check page 4, table 5.3-4. The US is the safest per passenger-mile of all the listed countries (UK is a close 2nd), but most definitely *not* the safest per capita - not even close. The difference is explained by how much more Americans drive than people in most other places. I've seen other data listing more nations, but I cannot immediately find it, sorry :(

http://www.vtpi.org/tca/tca0503.pdf

So "safest in the world" depends on how you look at it :D. If we have to drive further to go about our business, is it really safer?

The US is also the safest per passenger-mile for aviation fatalities.

Re:Nice.

[BerntB]

I should add this(since "Preview" is too close to "Submit"):

I've been to Europe enough to see that the attitudes of the citizens about driving is pretty abysmal.

Personally, I'd be less scared of bungy jumping than to drive in Paris -- and I don't like heights. :-)

when *I* was young I used to be liberal and think like you. :-)

I don't know if this has a political viewpoint. It is a practical question of what works in different sets of circumstances (/traditions). As you noted yourself. (-: So I am probably the same age as you. :-)

Re:Nice.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, crap, I looked at the table again and it doesn't actually show the US as the safest per passenger-mile, just close.

That contradicts other data I have seen which had the US first, and the UK second. Maybe it depends on the year you look at, and the way you measure it.

Anyway, it's still quite good compared to much of Europe.

Re:Nice.

[misterpies]

>>I've been to Europe enough to see that the attitudes of the citizens about driving is pretty abysmal.

Sure, because Europe is this homogenous country with one continent-wide attitude. (hint: sarcasm).

Just because you've seen Italians or Frenchmen careering around like homicidal maniacs it doesn't mean that the Finnish are the same. (FWIW, in Italy you can get on a motor scooter at 14 without any licence.)

And if you really want a like-for-like comparison between Finland and the US, note that much of Finland is above the arctic circle and the rest is pretty close. So for half the year Fins drive in near darkness on icy roads. Might be a bit tricky than coasting down the freeway in LA. How does Finland's road safety record compare with Alaska?

Re:Nice.

[birge]

Work hours in college? Now that's a loaded question...

Re:Nice.

[birge]

Obviously, I haven't sampled all the drivers in Europe. But I've been as far north as Stockholm and as south as Rome, and if there is ONE stereotype about Europeans that seems to be fairly true (and I think most are false, or only regionally true) it is that they drive like they're crazy. Given how much mixing occurs between region's drivers, and driving habits tend to homogenize around a common attitude (I learned that living in the Northeast!) I think it's not unreasonable.

Anyway, you have a very going point about the latitude. I can't imagine that doesn't hurt.

Re:Nice.

[cloudmaster]

Ok, perhaps I should've said that there are just a few reputable schools that have courses that are directly applicable to street driving. :) And if you've got a list, I'd appreciate a URL - I'd like to beat the heck out of someone else's car in a controlled environment, and I'd liek to not have to drive to the Souther states to do so.

Re:Nice.

[cloudmaster]

I'd make the addition that, if you hit one squirrel, you have to hit them all. :)

Re:Nice.

[Anonymous Coward]

Keruo,

In the US, first they make sure you're not 100% blind. If you pass the vision test, they take your pulse. If you have a pulse, you have a license.

Re:Nice.

[modecx]

Bwahaha. Nice. >:D

Re:Nice.

[mcmaddog]

The reason the license looks different for those under 21 is to allow quick recognition of those of legal drinking age.

Re:Nice.

[n3g471v3 z3r0]

but what about the people who will do it with out the licence? My brother works for an auto insurance company and in a large number of the claims he investigates, many of the involved parties don't have drivers licences

Re:Nice.

[torgis]

Those are pretty exhaustive requirements. Based on my observations made driving here in the US of A, I'm fairly certain they give away drivers licenses free in boxes of breakfast cereal.

Or if you want to do it the hard way, you need to be 18 years old, pay $80, and pass a 40 question test with 70% accuracy. That's only 28 out of 40 that you need to actually get right. Scary, eh?

-torgis

Fuel gauge?

[yroJJory]

I hope it has a good early-warning fuel gauge system so you don't plummet out of the sky when gas runs out!

Any hybrids coming?

Re:Fuel gauge?

[MichaelSmith]

I hope it has a good early-warning fuel gauge system so you don't plummet out of the sky when gas runs out!

According to TFA it has both a fuel warning system and two ballistic parachutes.

Re:Fuel gauge?

[volfro]

Nah, no hybrids, I bet. His are rotary engines built to run off of pretty much anything--including alcohol and biofuel. I remember reading a Time Life thing about him in the eighties that said the engine could run off of peanut oil. And on the site, it mentions the idea of running off of vegetable oil with small conversion efforts.

So that means low to no emissions there. Supposedly.

Re:Fuel gauge?

[Anonymous Coward]

The original diesel engine ran off of peanut oil, nothing special, although diesels in aircraft are still rare, actually they are preferable. With a standard spark detonated engine you need to ensure that the spark is there to keep the motor running, requiring such bulky stuff like a double magneto, etc. With a diesel engine, once the engine is running you just need to inject/mix the fuel properly to keep it going. In Europe due to the high prices of AvGas there has been alot of effort in the research of this for private planes. The main issue currently is buying diesel certified clean enough.

Re:Fuel gauge?

[Whispers_in_the_dark]

According to TFA it has both a fuel warning system and two ballistic parachutes.

Oh, _that_ will make me feel better when several thousand pounds of machine + personage come crashing through my roof. At least the car might survive the fall.

Re:Fuel gauge?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lighten up, Francis.

Re:Fuel gauge?

[modecx]

The thing is, moller's engines that ran on diesel fuel were not, infact, diesel engines. Diesels use compression ingnition, his still used sparks, and fuel was introduced into the air before the compression stroke, or rotation, as it were--unlike a diesel where fuel is injected into the cylinder just before the compression stroke is complete. I have a hard time beleiving that it ran well, but I can beleive that it did run--but barely, or at very reduced power.
It's got to be very hard to vaporize diesel oil to the point where it will burn efficiently in a regular engine, and even if one did, spark timing will have to be advanced very far (because diesel will burn slower, sort of a lag for combustion) or power will suck, and it will blow smoke like mad due to incomplete combustion. I would think diesel to burn far too slowly to be at all effective in a rotary engine, where higher RPMs = more power.

Re:Fuel gauge?

[yroJJory]

My post was really meant to be light-hearted. Of course, the second after I pushed "Submit" I realized that some might not read that. :-)

Is this legal?

[Sinryc]

Is this even legal? Wouldn't one have to have a licnese to pilot these? OR would it just be like it was no big thing?

Re:Is this legal?

[jcr]

Is this even legal?

Sure it is. It's an experimental aircraft.

Wouldn't one have to have a licnese to pilot these?

Probably. Check with the FAA.

-jcr

Re:Is this legal?

[hughperkins]

From the website:

"M400 Skycar Deposit Information

"Deposit is refundable until after a successful transitioning flight has occurred. Thereafter deposits are refundable only if Final Delivery Price exceeds List Price (as adjusted for CPI-W) by 5%, OR Standard Equipment List has been shortened OR Guaranteed Performance Specifications are not met, OR FAA Certification Date of the M400 Skycar occurs after December 31, 2008 or a Purchase Agreement is executed prior to FAA certification. "

"Your required deposit amount is as follows:

"Delivery Position List Price
25-100 $995,000
101-200 $750,000
201-500 $500,000"

So, they're anticipating obtaining FAA approval by 2008. The price for a car depends on how long you're willing to wait. Starts off at one million, and drops to half a million if you're willing to wait till 200 have already been sold.

Hugh

Re:Is this legal?

[daniil]

From the Moller website: Moller is currently working with the FAA to obtain certification of the M400 Skycar under the "powered lift normal" category. /../ In addition, the FAA has established a "powered lift" pilot's license. This, together with a thorough familiarization, will be required to pilot a Skycar, primarily to ensure adequate flight management and navigational skills. So, to answer your question: they're working to legalize it, and you will need a licence to pilot one.

Re:Is this legal?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not the price for the vehicle, that's the price to get on the waiting list, a deposit toward the vehicle. So if you want to be at the front of the line, you've gotta cough up about a mil for the honor.

Re:Is this legal?

[tricorn]

And, there are no powered lift aircraft certified that I've heard of, thus no powered lift certified pilots or instructors.

Also, there's a speed limit below 10,000 feet, 250 knots (288 MPH). 350 MPH is right out unless you want to climb up that high, which you won't want to do for a short trip (speed while climbing is likely to be significantly lower).

Re:Is this legal?

[VagaStorm]

That is still quite good considering you can drive in a direct line :p

Re:Is this legal?

[GungaDan]

Who cares? How are the cops gonna pull you over? Or tell anyone where you are or where you're headed?

"Attention all units, the offending skycar driver is passing directly beneath the Earth's Sun... NOW!"

Re:Is this legal?

[RadioTV]

That would be the Air National Guard flying F16s. And if they want you to be on the ground, you will be on the ground.

Re:Is this legal?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Experimental aircraft" still have to be inspected by the FAA and issued a certificate of airworthiness before they can fly. The moller skycar does not currently have (nor has it ever had) such a certificate, meaning it cannot be flown in free flight at all, by anyone, not even licensed pilots. I wouldn't count on it getting one (neither experimental or restricted) anytime soon. This is nothing but an expensive mantlepiece.

And anyway, who the hell wants to fly in something that will be unrecoverable in the event of an engine cut-off? The whole thing is stupid and unsafe. He should make radio-controlled miniature models instead, I'd buy one in an instant.

Re:Is this legal?

[Deadstick]

OK, gimme $500,000 and I'll make you a personal starship. If I don't deliver it by 12/31/08, you can have your $500,000 back. Excuse me...my broker's on the other line.

rj

Something new...

[BrynM]

Imagine going to DMV for that...

Lucky-*ucker: Hi, I'd like to register my Moller Sky Car.
DMV drone: What year is your Buick Skylark?
Lucky-*ucker: No, my sky car. Sky CAR!

I can see the look on the driving tester's face at license renewal. $3.5 mil and flying, it gives new meaning to "Tax and Licensing".

Re:Something new...

[appleLaserWriter]

It will probably be easier to register than the Zeppelin NT offered a few years back.

Re:Something new...

[bn-7bc]

well the ting imho is that you ar never going to drive/flay this cars manualy, you are going ti input youre destination into an outopilot system and just sit back (that system vill probably be 3 or 4 x redundsant). The driving certification will simply be a test i operating tha auto pilot

So..

[heavy snowfall]

What does this say about the status of the project? Given up? Or ready to go with manufacturing new ones?

--
Use your bluetooth phone as a modem for Linux

Re:So..

[BrynM]

What does this say about the status of the project? Given up? Or ready to go with manufacturing new ones?

From TFA "Only 75 Neiman Marcus Special Editions will be produced and delivered in 2006." I was expecting a couple of prototypes, but 75! I'd say they're going onward full bore.

Re:So..

[Anonymous Coward]

That's 75 LEXI, err, Lexuses, err...

In any case, learn to read. And, your post was ASININE.

Re:So..

[jcr]

I was expecting a couple of prototypes, but 75! I'd say they're going onward full bore.

I'm very skeptical when it comes to Moller. The guy has been promising that he was five years away from shipping a product for at least 25 years. I hope I'm wrong, though.

-jcr

Re:So..

[BrynM]

That's 75 LEXI, err, Lexuses, err...

I stand corrected. Thanks.

Re:So..

[general_re]

I believe the "75 special editions" thing refers to the Lexuses, not the Skycar. One Skycar, 75 Lexuses (Lexii?).

One day

[Dark_Oppressor]

I can't wait until the day I get my very own flying car. What I'd really love is a flying Delorean ^^

Re:One day

[mcbazza]

Roads? Where we're going, we don't need roads.

Re:One day

[Anonymous Coward]

my delorean won't even start - and no matter how hard i flap the doors, it won't take off either.

Elton John ?

[Ripping Silk]

OK, whos fantasy has Elton John singing..?

Re:Elton John ?

[ErichTheWebGuy]

whos fantasy has Elton John singing..?

The GNAA, of course! *ducks*

We should all pool our money and buy this.

[Mustang Matt]

I'd donate a spot in my garage and you guys can come take it for a spin any time you're in town. :)

Re:We should all pool our money and buy this.

[ThePromenader]

Hey, and when I take off from in front of my garage every morning the neighbours better say goodbye to any stray balls, toys, wigs or pets they're not hanging on to.

Re:We should all pool our money and buy this.

[zonker]

I live in Davis, California about a mile from "Moller International" home of the Skycar.

There is some debate over whether or not Moller is actually a scammer vs. an unlucky inventor lacking funds to complete his work. Lots of folks have poured money into his venture and never seen anything come out of it.

In fact, the Skycar has never even flown off tether...

Re:We should all pool our money and buy this.

[mookie da wookie]

I'll fart in your car!
I belch in your space!
I'll open my mouth
And yell in your face!


Spook rice face!

Finished product?

[Lisandro]

This car has been on an "almost ready for production" state since i have memory - i recall reading on Popular Science about it and how it would revolutionize transport when i was a kid! So, are they selling these days? The site's a bit vague about this... and the one mentioned in the article is a prototype - a working prototype, yes, but still.

Plain old false advertising

[Stormy Henderson]

This is just an airplane. Nothing at all do with a car. Those three piddly wheels would fall off on the first pothole.

The only interesting thing about it is that it is VTOL (vertical take-off and landing).

Re:Nice. // FAA cert

[cometman]

The Moller FAQ page says they expect it within 4 years.

Come on though imagine if these get cheaper

[Snatch422]

How great would it be to fly 100 feet over the highway on your way to work going 300mph and watching all the traffic jams. The enjoyment from that would be almost too great. VTOL means you could use this thing anywhere even in a city. Flying around streets with skyscrapers in this would be intense too. I just hope they get more affordable but not too affordable because they will get massively regulated once that happens because too many flying cars will cause a good amount of accidents.

Re:Come on though imagine if these get cheaper

[Kiffer]

this might sound like a stupid question ... but how slow can it go?

Re:Come on though imagine if these get cheaper

[EnderWigginsXenocide]

100 feet over the highway on your way to work going 300mph and you suddenly colide with a high-tension power-line because the FAA designates MAGL for powered flight to be 500 feet in almost all of the country (exceptions for takeoff/landing and some offshore corridors, and of course law enforcement.)

Re:Come on though imagine if these get cheaper

[jav1231]

Wait, according to their website they're already "personally affordable" at $3.5million. Must be my neighborhood, but I don't know anyone "personally" who can afford that.

Re:Come on though imagine if these get cheaper

[shagrat]

Going that fast that low will:

A. Probably get you killed

B. Get you arrested. Believe it or not, there is a speed limit. You can't go over 200 knots below 18,000. Thats about 230 mph. Plus, going closer than 500 feet to buildings or people can get you a visit from the sheriff when you land. And then later a visit from the FAA to pickup your pilot's license.

Save yourself some money.

Re:Come on though imagine if these get cheaper

[celtic_hackr]

Realistically speaking (not a /. trend), unless you have a really long commute, you'd never get your vehicle up to 350 MPH. Unless of course you were a maniac, which of course would make you a real menace to life in the air and on the ground. You'd be one of those "bold pilots" we hear about. Much like the "QUID" motorcyclists you see occasionally on the road.

Assuming a 20 mile commute and an acceleration of say 0-60 in 4 seconds. Time to reach 350 mph approx. 24 seconds. Assuming linear acceleration, covering a distance of about 1.5 miles (24 sec X 180 mph ave). Giving, you ability to travel at 350mph for 17 miles (or about 3 minutes). At which time you'd need to begin decelerating hard, in order to not overshoot the office. Possible, but not practical. At 350 you'd have to fly by instrument only, you'd not be able to react fast enough. 200 or 250 is probably a more realistic speed for the daily commute. Of course I'm ignoring all kinds of things like wind shear, friction, etc. that would make the time to reach 350 longer. I imagine, without doing any calculations that realistically time at 350mph on a 20 mile stretch would be closer to 10-12 miles or about two minutes. Still a four minute commute is appealing.

btw, for those who aren't bikers, QUID = Quick Until I Die.

I for one welcome our flying car overlords!

Fuel guzzling...

[NidStyles]

I wonder who the first self-indulgent bastard to buy one will be.

Re:Fuel guzzling...

[UniverseIsADoughnut]

Paul Allen

Re:Fuel guzzling...

[allanc]

Fuel guzzling? Are you kidding? This gets better gas mileage than my van!

(1994 GMC Safari. ~17mpg, if you have a tailwind)

Truly

[rmull]

Gravity is a harsh mistress.

Re:Truly

[kfg]

No gravity, no air. No air, no airplanes, no airships. I don't think we'll be free of gravity for awhile. Ironically it is gravity that makes flight possible.

KFG

Re:Truly

[Anonymous Coward]

Ironically it is gravity that makes flight possible.

Like space flights?

Re:Truly

[BobaFett]

Why would you need a ship with airlift (i.e. wing) if there was no gravity? Just push off of the ground... Now coming back is where some preparation is required.

Re:Truly

[kfg]

Like space flights?

Like when you jump off the top of a skyscraper?

Space travel is not flight. The term is a misnomer born of inapplicable earth based intuitive concepts. Space is not, despite dictionary.com, a medium. The space shuttle only flies when it lands. In space it simply falls and has some inertial motion.

Going to Mars, or Pluto, is no different and unless you burn three axis thrusters the whole way the path taken is ballistic, because. . .space is not a gravity free zone.

The medium the thrusters work against are the spacecraft itself, not a medium the spacecraft is moving through.

As an aside, penguins are not flightless, they simply require a denser medium than air in which to fly.

KFG

Re:Truly

[kfg]

Why would you need a ship with airlift (i.e. wing) if there was no gravity?

Good question.

Now coming back is where some preparation is required.

Good answer. Think about the forces on an airplane when it executes a turn. Some of the "lift" is being directed tangent to the ground. See my comment about penguins above. Think about what that could mean to submersible vehicles.

KFG

Re:Truly

[brouski]

I've heard it said before that orbiting the earth is simply the act of flinging yourself toward the ground and missing.

Re:Truly

[geekoid]

"Space is not, despite dictionary.com, a medium."

Then how do solar sails work?

"...space is not a gravity free zone."

then why do planets orbit the sun?

Re:Truly

[kfg]

Then how do solar sails work?

Jeezum Crow! Took long enough for someone to show up with that question. I expected you ages ago.

By being large enough to notice the medium. Everything is relative, including a medium. They also don't work like a boat's sails, as there is no medium for a keel to work against. They can only run before the wind, until it becomes rare enough that they can no longer notice it.

then why do planets orbit the sun?

You needed to think about that one a bit harder before posing the question. They orbit the sun because space is not a gravity free zone, otherwise instead of following a ballistic path around the sun their inertial motion would carry them in a straight line.

The Sun's gravity accelerates them toward the Sun.

KFG

This is the end

[Anonymous Coward]

of all the "where's my flying cars" jokes...

Torrent please

[dave1g]

Videos are slashdotted, a torrent of all the video's would be very welcomed.

Thank You.

Forget Skycars

[TheAdventurer]

Forget Sky Cars. My dad works at a company that makes Sky Buses. And you can ride anywhere in the USA for less than a thousand dollars. These Sky Buses have comfortable seating, attendants who give you food and spill drinks on you, and even a little TV you can watch with headphones.

Yep, Boeing makes these awesome Sky Buses with wheels and everything.

Re:Forget Skycars

[Anonymous Coward]

Not anywhere in the US, only between specific locations to which you still need to get by normal means.

Re:Forget Skycars

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, Boeing makes these awesome Sky Buses

Carerul, you don't want your dad's employer to get sued by their competitor.

http://www.airbus.com/en/

Re:Forget Skycars

[MichaelSmith]

Yep, Boeing makes these awesome Sky Buses with wheels and everything.

I don't want an aeroplane. I want a flying car to park beside my horseless carriage.

Re:Forget Skycars

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean... like bus stops?

Unless we're talking the school bus, its very rare for someone to not have to travel to a bus stop. It may not be as far as an airport (depends on where you live) but your comment really doesn't mean anything.

Re:Forget Skycars

[pookemon]

Last time I checked the 777 wasn't VTOL.

Re:Forget Skycars

[jcr]

Boeing makes these awesome Sky Buses with wheels and everything.

Yeah, they're great if I want to go to London or Singapore, but not terribly practical if I just want to go from Cupertino to Santa Cruz. That's about an hour in the car, on a very dangerous, crowded mountain road and it would be more like 15 minutes in the air.

-jcr

Re:Forget Skycars

[dodobh]

But if you take it to your office, you might have a few problems.

Re:Forget Skycars

[dave1g]

I think you might be infringing on AirBus' trademark

:-p

Re:Forget Skycars

[game kid]

Wow. There are quadriplegics more sensitive than you.

That said, considering the availability of car (nevermind plane) parking near offices, +5 Correct.

Re:Forget Skycars

[dodobh]

I was actually flaming the OP. It wasn't meant to be a sensitive, gentle comment.

Test drive?

[Fastball]

Anyone know where I can go and kick the propellers on one of these? ;)

Re:Test drive?

[jcr]

Anyone know where I can go and kick the propellers on one of these?

Davis, California. Near Sacramento.

-jcr

Re:Test drive?

[werewolf1031]

You mean "kick the turbofans". :)

Requisite "It's fake!"

[Krid(O'Caign)]

It's unquestionably a heavier than air vehicle (Especially when full of people), so it can't generate lift from density differences. It doesn't have any significant wingspan, which means that it can't use bernoulli's principal to generate lift. Therefore, the only reasonable remaining possibility is that it must be creating a downward thrust equal to the mass*gravity of the vehicle. That's very, very bad for gas mileage, making the "28mpg" claim more than a little dubious. In theory, strapping four engines with those claimed power/consumption ratios to a compact car with no standard engine and the wheels in neutral should generate highway speeds at vastly higher MPG ratings.

Re:Requisite "It's fake!"

[ezweave]

Yeah, many people have thought that the skycar has been an investment scam, and it probably is. Hey the SEC thinks so!

Although I see that Bernoulli's principle strikes again! Alas, that is not really what generates lift (my modern Physics professor in college used to teach at the Air Force Academy and said they still teach that to pilots... ghastly). While there is a Bernoulli effect that influences lift, there is an assumption and crude explanation (hey the air flows above and below the wing have to meet up).

Many readers new to this topic may be looking for the explanation that is commonly put forward in many mainstream books, and even scientific exhibitions, that touch on flight and aerodynamic principles; namely, that due to the greater curvature (and hence longer path) of the upper surface of an aerofoil, the air going over the top must go faster in order to "catch up" with the air flowing around the bottom (and hence due to its faster speed its pressure is lower, etc). Despite the fact that this "explanation" is probably the most common of all, it must be made clear that it is utterly false.

here

Of course Bernoulli was a natural philosopher which explains why this was easily accepted (thanks Neal Stephenson, for fictionalizing that part of history).

Scientific arguments aside, the Moller sky car graced the pages of Popular Mechanics and Popular Science when I was a kid. No one in their right mind would buy it, it is a silly impractical (not to mention unsafe) idea. Do you know how much work it takes to get a pilot's license? Or instrument rated? Time and $$$$. That is why it is a dumb idea. But hey, rich old men can dream, can't they?

Re:Requisite "It's fake!"

[Floody]

It's unquestionably a heavier than air vehicle (Especially when full of people), so it can't generate lift from density differences. It doesn't have any significant wingspan, which means that it can't use bernoulli's principal to generate lift. Therefore, the only reasonable remaining possibility is that it must be creating a downward thrust equal to the mass*gravity of the vehicle. That's very, very bad for gas mileage, making the "28mpg" claim more than a little dubious. In theory, strapping four engines with those claimed power/consumption ratios to a compact car with no standard engine and the wheels in neutral should generate highway speeds at vastly higher MPG ratings.

Unfortunately for your pet theory, the Bernoulli Principal has very little to do with standard airfoil generated lift; you've been incorrectly educated (as have many). The principal responsible is the Coanda effect, and the humorous bit is that it actually causes exactly what you deride as an extremely inefficent method of generating lift (although I will agree, 28mpg seem a tad ridiculous for any aircraft). To quickly understand the Bernoulli fallacy, puzzle over this one question: How does an inverted aircraft remain both aerodynamically stable (relatively) and continue to maintain or increase altitude when the very airfoil shape that causes the Bernoulli effect is completely upside-down?

Re:Requisite "It's fake!"

[Anubis350]

Do you know how much work it takes to get a pilot's license? Or instrument rated? Time and $$$$.

wouldnt rich old men have both of those?

Re:Requisite "It's fake!"

[EnderWigginsXenocide]

Do you know how much work it takes to get a pilot's license? Or instrument rated? Time and $$$$. That is why it is a dumb idea. Dude, it's cheaper than buying a smallbiz jet + small helicopter and paying for aircrews for them both. This thing claims to go quite a bit faster than the typical helo, and besides helicopters there aren't a whole lot of options for civilian VTOL. To get 300+ MPH flight and VTOL the price of training will be the least of your worries. Think about what you'll be saving when you don't have to maintain two diffrent types of aircraft, or their crews.

Re:Requisite "It's fake!"

[CthulhuDreamer]

The original Skycar was a disk, held aloft by pure exhaust. I'm not sure how he made the jump to the current design, the aerodynamics (if any) are completely different.

http://www.moller.com/skycar/m200x/

Re:Requisite "It's fake!"

[Alioth]

An inverted plane (with a normal non-symmetric airfoil) flies upside down (badly) due to the angle of attack. The air flowing over the 'top' (now bottom of the wing) still goes faster than the air 'underneath'. In fact, the air never goes faster 'to catch up with the air underneath' - the air flow over the wing is MUCH faster than underneath (where it tends to slow a little). A wind tunnel can demonstrate this quite ably.

But it's a fallacy to say that x% of lift is caused by Bernouilli's laws (which predict the pressures very accurately) or the Coanda effect or... and y% is provided by Newton's equal and opposite reaction - it's not cumulative. 100% of lift can be explained by pressure differential, and 100% of lift can be explained by Newton's theories. They are just different ways of looking at the same thing.

Re:Requisite "It's fake!"

[tricorn]

The claim is that at high speeds, the amount of aerodynamic lift from the body of the car is enough to keep it up, which is probably true. Still, a very inefficient airfoil, extremely low aspect ratio.

Re:Requisite "It's fake!"

[zippthorne]

There were eight Bernoullis. and the bernoulli 'effect' is physically real. It doesn't say anything about catching up or whatnot. It is simply that the energy in a streamline is constant at any point in that streamline. This whole catching up thing sounds a like high school physics text 'virus' to me.

You can produce lift simply from a curved wing design provided there isn't 'boundary layer separation.' So IF the streamlines meet again after the wing, you can calculate how much lift this would provide. It's not much, but it's not zero.

Re:Requisite "It's fake!"

[Anonymous Coward]

As you obviously know, the catchup is the assumption that allows you to use the Bernoulli effect to "explain" flight.

The Bernoulli effect is very real, but it isn't nearly enough to lift a plane. It is also very useful in other situations where it is more applicable.

Also this bad explaination can't explain why most modern planes can fly upsidedown where the same argument would have them shooting towards the earth.

The real explaination of flight is boringly simple. You maintain a certain velocity and angle while redirecting air downwards. Via either Newton's 3rd law or conservation of momentum, the downward redirected air thrusts you upward. This gives you some drag in the process, so you must maintain velocity. You can practice all of this by sticking your flat hand out the car window while on the highway.

Re:Requisite "It's fake!"

[zippthorne]

Well yes, but then even with bernouli effect, you'd be directing air downward just from a control volume point of view. It's my understanding that at low speeds, it can make sense to design wings to generate bernoulli lift, but as speed increases, the drag resultant from the needed curves makes it horribly inefficient.

Re:Requisite "It's fake!"

[birge]

I'm guessing you're not an aerospace engineer. (Neither am I.) But thanks for the aerodynamics lecture, nonetheless. For what it's worth, at high speeds I'm sure a lot of lift is created by the various small "wings" on the car. An F1 racer is able to generate "lift" downwards equal to its weight, for example. It's very hard to intuitively figure out lift from just looking at something. So don't. They have computers for that, but unfortunately they don't post to /. or we'd actually get some decent posts when aerospace stuff comes up.

Re:Requisite "It's fake!"

[birge]

Jesus christ. We should just put a moratorium on aerospace subjects on /... Bernoullis principle AND Newton both explain flight perfectly well. They are both consistent, and different ways of looking at the same thing. The pressure differential predicted by Bernouli is exactly the lift. And the transfer of momentum to the airstream predicts the same lift.

The only thing that's wrong with the high school physics book picture is that absolutely nothing requires the air particles passing over/under the wing to ever meet again. In fact, they can't, because the rotation of air around the wing (faster over the top) is essential to lift.

Re:Requisite "It's fake!"

[AaronLawrence]

Thanks for pointing this out. I always thought the stuff about pressure above and below seemed somehow wrong.

Re:Requisite "It's fake!"

[TheSync]

Perhaps it would be easier to build a "sky car" if it has a significant rigid airship component...why not have 50% of the lift come from helium?

Re:Requisite "It's fake!"

[mav[LAG]]

The principal responsible is the Coanda effect

Jeff Raskin (he of Mac fame) also believed this. It is a complete fairy tale. Thoroughly debunked here. Among many other things, the Coanda effect simply cannot explain why there is upwash in front of a wing as well as downwash behind it.

How does an inverted aircraft remain both aerodynamically stable (relatively) and continue to maintain or increase altitude when the very airfoil shape that causes the Bernoulli effect is completely upside-down?

You're now doing what you accuse the gp of doing and misapplying Bernoulli as well. Ignoring boundary conditions, Bernoulli's principle does correctly predict a pressure drop on the upper surface of an airfoil but the reason is not because of some mythical property of fluids that disallow delay - it's because of circulation and the fact that a wing is very good at changing the speed of parcels of air. A wing is actually a very efficient pump that sets up circulation of the airflow by changing the speed of the air. Over the entire span of the wing (and the span is something normally ignored by Coanda fans), Bernoulli's principle says that there will be a suction force on the upper airfoil proportional to the pressure difference produced by the wing as it circulates the oncoming airflow. Upside down airfoils also circulate the air just fine, as long as the angle of attack is increased accordingly.

Re:Requisite "It's fake!"

[be-fan]

IAAE (I Am an Aerospace Engineer). I find the Wikipedia article is a bit strange. You can use Bernoulli's theory of incompressible flow to come up with why airfoils develop lift. Unlike what the article claims, it does not fail to explain why symmetric airfoils generate lift. If you work out the mathematics, you can see that its caused by the angle-of-attack. Indeed, one of the first things you learn in an aerodynamics course is how a symmetric flat plate can develop lift based on its angle of attack. The "top must move faster to catch up with the bottom" explanation is simplified, but its not wholly inaccurate. In incompressible flow, the pressure is a function of the velocity at a point on the airfoil compared to the freestream velocity. The top of the airfoil has a higher velocity, and therefore lower pressure. It's also not inaccurate to say that the velocities at the trailing-edge must be equal. In incompressible flow, since the pressure is proprotional to the velocity, the pressure at the trailing edge can only have one value, the velocities on the top and bottom must converge to the same value as the flow approaches the trailing edge. In aerodynamics, this is called the Kutta condition.

Re:Requisite "It's fake!"

[be-fan]

Slight correction. Nothing requires them to ever meet again, but that's not what the popular explanation says. It says that the two streamlines must have the same velocity when they meat at the trailing edge. In the context of incompressible flow (Bernoulli's theory), this is true, because otherwise you'd have a contradiction wherein the same point (the TE) has two values of pressure.

Re:Requisite "It's fake!"

[birge]

The popular explanation is flat out wrong. It's one of the worst examples of misinformation ever to achieve the status of scientific common wisdom. I remember reading it in my highschool textbooks, too. And incompressible flow doesn't require the adjascent volumes which separate above and below the wing to ever meet, either. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by your contradiction. In reality the two streams never truly meet, so there is no situation where you've got an instantaneous abrupt change in pressure. I'm sure theres a turbulent layer separating them right behind the trailing edge. But the reality is close to the idealized theory; you have a quickly moving stream very close to a slower moving one. This is why airplanes always shed vortices off the tips of their wings. (Vorticity is conserved in inviscid flow, which air approximately is, I believe.)

Re:Requisite "It's fake!"

[be-fan]

Actually, I never read it in my high-school textbooks. As far as I can tell, its a very simplified, but not wholly inaccurate version of the theory taught in low-speed aerodynamics courses. In incompressible theory (which is a low-speed theory), the two streamlines do meet at the trailing edge, and must have the same velocity at that point. This constraint (the Kutta condition), is a basic element of the theory of incompressible airflow over an airfoil. Also, the tip vortices aren't an effect of a turbulent layer right behind the TE, but a finite wing effect. They do not exist on infinite wings. With regards to verticity being conserved, its more precise to say that circulation is conserved, but you're basically right. However, its interesting to point out that its the conservation of circulation that enables the Kutta condition to exist in the first place. When the flow over an airfoil first starts, a large vortex is created at the trailing edge (to conserve the total circulation). This vortex induces circulation around the wing. Eventually, this vortex stops grown in strength when the induced circulation is just enough to ensure that the streamlines on the top and bottom of the wing meet in a way that preserves the Kutta condition.

I don't know what you're really getting at. The popular explanation isn't so much wrong as its very simplified. At low speeds, where you can approximate the flow as an incompressible one, its a fairly decent explanation of what happens.

Re:Requisite "It's fake!"

[birge]

Well, to be clear and single out what we're talking about, I'm saying that the popular explanation is totally wrong. Not simplified. I think I understand what the problem is, however: My understanding of the popular explanation is that the argument is two *particles* that were together at the front of the wing, one passing just above and the other passing just below, will end up together. This is different than saying that streamlines will have the same velocity once they eventually end up together behind the wing. I can see why that is true to the extent they really end up together. So even if the streamlines' velocity syncs up, particles in each stream won't be. At least in MY textbook, the picture was that the two particles meet up again. In reality, the particle going above the wing ends up ahead of the one below, and they never meet again. So maybe the confusion was that we were talking about two different things when referring to the "textbook picture".

Re:Requisite "It's fake!"

[be-fan]

Ah, I see. You're right that we're talking about two different pictures. I guess I wasn't thinking about the particles at all, as the AE in me considers air to be a continuous fluid :)

Re:Requisite "It's fake!"

[everphilski]

Umm... Bernoulli and Newtonian views both explain the phenomenon of lift and are in agreement. It's just two different perspectives of looking at the same problem.

it must be made clear that it is utterly false. There is no requirement that the air over the top must catch up to the air below

Actually this is known as the Kutta condition. The airflow on top must speed up, but by the end of the flow it must slow down to be the same speed as the flow below. (I'm not a big fan of Wikipedia ... pick up a good aerodynamics text, I'd recommend "Fundamentals of Aerodynamics" by Anderson)

-everphilski-

One would assume...

[imag0]

One would assume if you can afford it, you're pretty much past the law to begin with, eh?

As an Elton fan ...

[Buran]

I'd be happy with $1.5 million! (But I'd love the skycar too...)

not really flown yet

[Anonymous Coward]

This thing hasn't really flown yet, just hovered a couple meters above ground.
So the prototype is not usable, and it doesn't even have historic value yet.
I think Moller needs cash.

    - Anonycous Moward

Cute, but it'll never be practical.

[OwP_Fabricated]

Well, never in terms of our lifetimes and probably a couple more lifetimes after that.

For flying cars to ever work you'd need insane amounts of safety systems for every kind of failure. We're talking backup systems for the backup systems that backup the backup systems.

You'd also need central traffic network computers to control them, because there's no way in hell the vast majority of the population could fly something at 100MPH with any safety. You think a fender bender is bad? Wait until it also makes you fall 200 feet out of the sky.

And don't try to imagine the death and devestation the first time the traffic system fails (insert "lol crash" jokes here).

Of course, anyone can figure all this out pretty easily. I'm being over-critical.

Re:Cute, but it'll never be practical.

[BrokenStructure]

had you taken the time to check out the web-site you may have read that there are 3 back-up electronics systems and 8 engines (2 per propellor). Any one could fail and the craft would still be able to fly and land safely (according to the web-site). I think if we could convert the lexus' detection system that slows the car down or speeds it up to compensate for traffic when cruise control is engaged, only for collision detection, this thing might be relatively idiot proof.

Re:Cute, but it'll never be practical.

[Vexar]

It was supposed to have a parachute deployment on systems failure. Trouble is... I can't see it landing in a safe spot. What if it deploys over a lake? Or a forest? This has lawsuit visible a mile away. The only plus is that it is a about 60-100x more expensive than a private airplane. Why Moller is bothering with another fossil-fuel craft is beyond me. It is clear to me that the only innovations in travel that will have significant bearing on our lives are those which involve new fuel sources or outstanding fuel economy.

Re:Cute, but it'll never be practical.

[birge]

For flying cars to ever work you'd need insane amounts of safety systems for every kind of failure. We're talking backup systems for the backup systems that backup the backup systems.

They have that.

You'd also need central traffic network computers to control them, because there's no way in hell the vast majority of the population could fly something at 100MPH with any safety. You think a fender bender is bad? Wait until it also makes you fall 200 feet out of the sky.

People do it all the time. It's easier to fly at 200 MPH than drive at 40. Trust me. There's a lot less to hit in the sky. Under ATC, you're miles away from the nearest thing at your altitude. Remember, you're taking the people from a 2D surface and putting them in a 3D sky. A whole new dimension opens up in which to separate people. There's tons of sky. They're not going to be as stupid as you are and assume everybody will just stick to the same routes and altitude, like they did on the Jetsons.

And don't try to imagine the death and devestation the first time the traffic system fails (insert "lol crash" jokes here).

Why would an ATC failure crash every airplane? We drive on a 2D highway with other cars and nobody crashes. I'm sure a 3D sky with miles of separation between each car will allow for people to avoid each other even if they lose contact with ATC. Maybe we won't even need central control but will rely on onboard traffic displays.

Of course, anyone can figure all this out pretty easily. I'm being over-critical.

Actually, you're talking out of your ass about a subject you know nothing of.

Re:Cute, but it'll never be practical.

[OwP_Fabricated]

People do it all the time. It's easier to fly at 200 MPH than drive at 40. Trust me. There's a lot less to hit in the sky. Under ATC, you're miles away from the nearest thing at your altitude. Remember, you're taking the people from a 2D surface and putting them in a 3D sky. A whole new dimension opens up in which to separate people. There's tons of sky. They're not going to be as stupid as you are and assume everybody will just stick to the same routes and altitude, like they did on the Jetsons.

There's a lot less to hit until there are a lot of people using these things, which is what the creator wants. Mid-air collisions and crashes occur with regular planes now, and you think this guy's vision of the general public flying everywhere won't increase that number? But hey, thanks for calling me stupid, asshole.

Why would an ATC failure crash every airplane? We drive on a 2D highway with other cars and nobody crashes.

Holy shit, why did I even bother? You're obviously fucking retarded. Jesus Christ. Get off the internet.

Re:Cute, but it'll never be practical.

[birge]

There's a lot less to hit until there are a lot of people using these things, which is what the creator wants. Mid-air collisions and crashes occur with regular planes now, and you think this guy's vision of the general public flying everywhere won't increase that number? But hey, thanks for calling me stupid, asshole.

Well, you run your mouth off about things you know nothing about, and it happens. You're welcome. The people who are advocating popular aviation usage (and it's not just Moller) have given this a lot of thought. Infinitely more than you gave before posting your piss poor opinion. They don't rely on a big central computer, for one. They rely on people mostly flying on their own, with separation assistance from ATC and the fact that the sky offers so much space and so many opportunities for routes that the total capacity is huge. Current air-to-air collisions usually occur in the cogested airspace of an airport, and between low-tech airplanes without traffic information. The idea for popular flying (as envisioned by NASA) involves every airplane having a display showing the location of every other airplane in real-time. Furthermore, with VTOL machines like the skycar, there is no need for airports and the points of congestion they create. En route, there is so much airspace out there you could have every American flying at once and they could still have miles of separation.

As for my statement about 2D highways and nobody crashing: my point was that we are able to 'see and avoid' in the confined space of a highway, where everybody is forced to the same altitude, without a central computer. Why would you think we'd need a central computer to keep us separated when in the LESS restrictive environment of 3D airspace, where you'd have an extra dimension (really an extra two) to work with to avoid people? The issues is making flying as intuitive as driving a car, and making information about the location of other aircraft available to the pilot (it's not today, in most cases). People are working on it, and the fact that air-to-air collisions exist with the 60s era technology used in private aviation today is not cogent. Your ignorant alarmism really wasn't very helpful in the discussion, and your tantrum at the end of your last message wasn't very impressive.

Re:Cute, but it'll never be practical.

[OwP_Fabricated]

The people who are advocating popular aviation usage (and it's not just Moller) have given this a lot of thought. Infinitely more than you gave before posting your piss poor opinion.

which is why I just saw 10 skycars fly past my house today on the way to the grocery store.

They don't rely on a big central computer, for one. They rely on people mostly flying on their own, with separation assistance from ATC and the fact that the sky offers so much space and so many opportunities for routes that the total capacity is huge. Current air-to-air collisions usually occur in the cogested airspace of an airport, and between low-tech airplanes without traffic information. The idea for popular flying (as envisioned by NASA) involves every airplane having a display showing the location of every other airplane in real-time. Furthermore, with VTOL machines like the skycar, there is no need for airports and the points of congestion they create. En route, there is so much airspace out there you could have every American flying at once and they could still have miles of separation.

Until you take the inevitable airspace restrictions that would result in these things becoming popular. I'm sure local/state/federal government wouldn't be too hot on the idea of civilians flying large numbers of aircars in/around/over major metro areas regardless of how much free space there was for them to not hit eachother. The first time someone's aircar suffers enough critical failures to crash into a residential area or skyscraper at 350MPH would probably be the last, even though it took a million-to-one freak accident for it to occur.

As for my statement about 2D highways and nobody crashing: my point was that we are able to 'see and avoid' in the confined space of a highway, where everybody is forced to the same altitude, without a central computer. Why would you think we'd need a central computer to keep us separated when in the LESS restrictive environment of 3D airspace, where you'd have an extra dimension (really an extra two) to work with to avoid people? The issues is making flying as intuitive as driving a car, and making information about the location of other aircraft available to the pilot (it's not today, in most cases). People are working on it, and the fact that air-to-air collisions exist with the 60s era technology used in private aviation today is not cogent. Your ignorant alarmism really wasn't very helpful in the discussion, and your tantrum at the end of your last message wasn't very impressive.

...You do know that there are about 6-6.5 million vehicle accidents a year right? 50,000+ deaths? On the same "confined 2d space" we're talking about? In vehicles with crumple zones, side-impact bars, air-bags, seat belts, antilock brakes, and average speeds of 40-50MPH? "More space" is going to stop the sleepy, drug/drink impaired, angry, unskilled, or simply unlucky drivers of the world from causing accidents?

I'd love to see civilian flight become popular and safe as much as anyone else. No traffic? The ability to visit family and friends that live miles away in a fraction of the time? To potentially work in one state and live in another without an agonizing commute? Sign me up. I just don't see it happening as litigious and alarmist (yeah, I know, irony considering what I'm posting) as the general public is.

Re:Cute, but it'll never be practical.

[geekoid]

well, except for the idiots on the ground with lasers.

How about flying underwater?

[core plexus]

You can get your own personal submarine for only $845,000

Might be handy with the melting ice and all.

Typically vague Muller

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.moller.com/news/pressrelease/SkycarInNM arcus2005.html

We have offered the prototype "for sale" in the catalog for $3.5 million on the condition that it be delivered after its inaugural piloted test flight scheduled for later this year or early 2006. Well, except that he notes elsewhere they really are "working towards" that day, and have NFI when it will actually happen.

Yep, it's "for sale"! Oh, but not the one in the photo! That's the shiny production version see.

You get the far uglier testing one shown here...

http://www.moller.com/skycar/ ... after they've finished with it. So the used up and probably modified-badly-between-tests, not-legal-to-fly, hopefully-not-crashed, uglier, prototype is your "for sale" "when it's done" (and we all know how well that's worked for Nukem Forever). For ONLY $3.5 million!

Yes, typical Muller all the way! What a visionary!

Comfortable Seating?!

[Greyfox]

If you're a midget or an amputee maybe. The rest of us will be rubbing our hip bones against the arm rests unless we spring for first class. Admittedly the price of a skycar will cover a LOT of first class tickets but you still have to deal with airport security and the "random" cavity searches. Not to mention getting around once you reach your destination and the danger of your carrier going bankrupt while you're at your destination. Even if you had to pilot the SkyCar with a joystick that went up your ass (Yes, like the South Park episode) it'd STILL be better than putting up with the crap the airlines dish out.

Re:Comfortable Seating?!

[Bastian]

Huh, but the price of a first class ticket probably won't even cover a single Skycar ride. The fuel consumption on that thing must be completely off the wall - it looks like the aerodynamic equivalent of a gorgeous, curvy, futuristic-looking brick.

Re:Comfortable Seating?!

[NeMon'ess]

My hip bones don't rub the armrests in coach. I'm also a healthy weight.

Re:Comfortable Seating?!

[afidel]

Yes, but for ~$2.5M(US) you can have a Cessna Citation Mustang 6-person bizjet which is currently in shakedown testing and which will almost assuradly become certified before the skycar. Or if you are commuting by yourself or with only a few passengers there's the Dayjet Eclipse 500 which seats two pilots and 3 passengers for ~$1.3M which is also in shakedown. Basically the skycar is overpriced, underperforming, and overhyped. Basically there's a bunch of 3-6 seat bizjet's currently in testing or early production which cost less than the $3.5M pricetag of this thing, many are listed here. Since it's a page from one of the competitors in the space take all claims about estimates with the appropriate amount of salt, but even when being estimated by a competitor all of their costs come in under $3M.

Re:Comfortable Seating?!

[ErikZ]

Did you read the blurb? 28 MPG.

Sheesh.

Re:Comfortable Seating?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Lots of people who aren't a healthy weight would have very well insulated hip bones.

Re:Comfortable Seating?!

[jafiwam]

Yeah.

28 MPG. MPG of what? Plutonium? Is there a Mr.Fusion on the back of the thing?

There are good reasons why that 28 MPG number is a lie, and it's the Laws of Thermodynamics.

Get a clue. Sheesh.

Re:Comfortable Seating?!

[Khamura]

Well, if you go by what's been listed for the previous one-seater prototype M150 (45 mpg on Natural Gas, 30 mpg on Alcohol), 28 mpg for the two-seater doesn't sound too far off.

Re:Comfortable Seating?!

[Khamura]

Yeah, but how much would the prototype of a Cessna cost? Still, I want to see how much this thing would cost should it go into production.

Re:Comfortable Seating?!

[Bastian]

I don't trust that number. For one, I can't find it on the company's website - whenever the topic of fuel efficiency or air pollution comes up, they throw up a smokescreen rather than giving some numbers.

For two, numbers in units of miles per gallon a rather unorthodox way of reporting an aircraft's fuel efficiency. This makes me think that this is the number they get for when it's operating on the ground.

For three, fixed-wing aircraft have fuel overall efficiencies that compete with cars, and VTOL aircraft ALWAYS consume a whole mess more fuel than CTOL aircraft. If they can really create an aircraft like this that sips fuel better than your average automobile (in the US at least), but haven't bothered to start pushing the technology behind their rotary engines to anybody in the auto industry - not even Mazda - I would be forced to conclude that the company is full of drooling morons.

Much easier for me to believe that that number is a result of either reporters screwing the facts up like they are wont to do when science or technology is involved, or a result of marketing people doing what marketing people get paid to do.

Re:Comfortable Seating?!

[Bastian]

Yeah, but all they want to talk about for this one is good old 92-octane unleaded.

Re:Comfortable Seating?!

[Anonymous Coward]

You're also a moron.

Re:Comfortable Seating?!

[chialea]

My hips don't rub, either, but some airlines put the seats so close together that when the person in front of me leans back their seat they're lying on my knees. This is compounded by the people (even the healthy weight ones) sitting next to me and overflowing into my seat. It's not economical to fly a cheaper airline if I can't get work done on the way (due to the lack of an unobstructed lap or table), or if I have to argue with them for TWO HOURS to get them to pay for a hotel room when they strand me in some random airport! ... I think I'm going to start springing for direct flights again.

Re:Comfortable Seating?!

[Mr2cents]

it's not "28 MPG", it's "up to 28 MPG". I guess that they first flew up a mile, and then measured fuel consumption while falling down.

PS: 28 miles per gallon = 11.9040238 kilometers per liter, still much more than a car. It might be ok for a flying machine but I wouldn't trust the figures neither.

Re:Comfortable Seating?!

[Paradise Pete]

Did you read the blurb? 28 MPG.

Well, TFA doesn't say 28. It says "environmentally-friendly 21 miles per gallon on alcohol."

Re:Comfortable Seating?!

[be-fan]

I'd really love to see how the laws of thermodynamics say that 28mpg is necessarily a lie. Seriously, what law does this violate? Zeroth, first, or second?

Re:Comfortable Seating?!

[ErikZ]

Why would the company website be any more trustworthy than the company ad literature?

"If they can really create an aircraft like this that sips fuel better than your average automobile (in the US at least), but haven't bothered to start pushing the technology behind their rotary engines to anybody in the auto industry - not even Mazda - I would be forced to conclude that the company is full of drooling morons."

Yeah, you don't know anything about this company do you? They've had a design for the engine on the drawing board for years. But they can't convince anyone to produce the thing in mass quantities. They're all terrified of lawsuits.

The Mazda engine is a compromise.

Re:Comfortable Seating?!

[ErikZ]

it's not "28 MPG", it's "up to 28 MPG". I guess that they first flew up a mile, and then measured fuel consumption while falling down.

(blink)
Ok, maybe things are different where you come from, but everywhere I've seen MPG used, it's been "up to X MPG". It's never really needed to be pointed out because it's one of those things that's inherent with reality.

Re:Comfortable Seating?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah -- I'm 6'3 with fairly heavy bone structure, and my *knees* are a problem. And I can't sleep because the headrest is too low, and I have plenty of other complaints about economy class.

No problem with hip bones, though.

Re:Comfortable Seating?!

[leandrod]

for ~$2.5M(US) you can have a Cessna Citation Mustang

Yes, but... the idea is that this is different stuff, not needing an airport for example.

Well cripes ... lemme see here ...

[Anonymous Coward]

>and one of the items up for purchase is the prototype M400 Skycar from Moller >International (for only $3.5 million US). ... I'll just dig into petty cash to scoop that right up!

Ain't there a museum for this kind of boondoggle?

MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

hahaha.

Yep, that pretty much describes the flakey bastard

Friends....

[zarthrag]

...Don't let friends fly drunk.

Re:Nice. // FAA cert

[Joe Random]

The Moller FAQ page says they expect it within 4 years.

Five years ago, the FAQ said that it would be available in two years. From the Wayback Machine:

http://web.archive.org/web/20001110012400/http://w ww.moller.com/faq/#M400%20Skycar0

In other words, take any deadline that Paul Moller gives you with a big ol' honkin' chunk of NaCl.

Mileage claim isn't fake...

[Mudcathi]

... it's just all downhill and downwind, with the engine idling :)

Re:Mileage claim isn't fake...

[interstellar_donkey]

.. it's just all downhill and downwind, with the engine idling :)

In terms of a "sky car", wouldn't the technical description for that be "falling from the sky?"

Which, you know, makes sense. It can fall from the sky from one mile up and the idling engine only uses 1/28th of a gallon of gas.

The difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

Whats the difference between this "Sky-Car" and a helicopter, i don't think this is really revolutionary.

Moller? Snake oil salesman

[Alioth]

From your garage to your destination, the M400 Skycar can cruise comfortably at 350+ MPH and achieve up to 28 miles per gallon.

Bullshit. The Moller Sky Car has been 'five years away' for as long as I've been alive. The math simply doesn't compute either - if you look at his engine specs, he'd need BSFC (brake specific fuel consumption) that is impossible with any known technology - let alone the kind of engines he's using.

Moller is merely a successful snake oil salesman who's managed to con investors for years.

Ducted fans

[XNormal]

During forward flight the vehicle generates a significant part of its lift using airfoils. These airfoils are small, but at cruising speed they are up to the task. Remember that normal aircraft use wings sized for low-speed takeoff and landing, not for cruising speed. Low-speed hovering will naturally consume much more fuel but it's only for a short time at takeoff and landing.

Ducted fan vehicles are feasible and should theoretically be capable of doing all Dr Moller claims they can do. It's a different question whether Moller's company can achieve it. People tend to become skeptical after decades of of promises...

Re:Ducted fans

[Alioth]

The interference drag on Moller's airframe would be a nightmare though. I bet it's a lot draggier than the equivalent sized regular airplane.

His Wankel engines are not even remotely capable of reaching the BSFC that would be required to get the claimed economy. Wankel engines are actually fairly inefficient (although smooth running). The Moller Skycar is a fiction that he's been claiming would be ready in 5 years for decades now.

cool

[Anubis350]

Neiman Marcus has just unveiled its 2005 Christmas Catalog of Fantasy Gifts last Tuesday

Hmmmm... any magic kingdoms for $1mil in there?

Re:cool

[Anitra]

Glad to see I wasn't the only one who thought that...

But then again, isn't the SkyCar as much a work of fiction as Brooks' Kingdom of Landover?

Free cookie recipe!

[Joel Rowbottom]

Do you get free cookies with it, or maybe even the recipe? ;)

Evolutionary path to independence

[owlstead]

"No matter how you look at it the automobile is only an interim step on our evolutionary path to independence from gravity."

This implies that the car is a step better than walking in handling gravity. Unfortunately the average car is only pretty good at plummeting. The author would be better off staying away from Dukes of Hazard series and movies in my opinion.

Picking up hookers with Sky Car :D

[linumax]

Just imagine!
Picking up hookers would be much more FUN!
hmmmm, well, I meant in GTA actually :D

Dude, where's my flying car?

[ABeowulfCluster]

I can forsee a sequel to a certain movie...

but....

[plonk420]

but we made a cooler commercial glorious *cough* (but streamable) quicktime or window$ media video

Re:but....

[zephc]

Thats cool and all, but a jet (even a personal jet) is still not the same as a flying car.

Anti-grav researchers need to get off their duffs and get us some sweet hovercars! Cmon, just 10 years til 2015!

Does anyone read

[bad_bwoy]

All these questions were answered in the provided link. Just go to the FAQ section.

4.22. How can I obtain a video of the M400 Skycar?

Since the M400 has not yet been flown, we do not have available video footage. You can however, obtain a Media Kit which includes a compilation video of interviews with Dr. Moller, a BETA master of our most recent flight test featuring the M200X (1990) and informational brochures on Skycar and Rotapower Engines for $50 plus shipping. Please see our Sales page to order.

4.21. Will I need a license to pilot an M400 Skycar?

Currently the Skycar is categorized as a "powered-lift normal" aircraft by the FAA. This means that, yes, you will require a "powered-lift normal" category pilot's license to operate a Skycar. However, it is our intention that the volantor will eventually evolve into a completely automated form of transportation making you a passenger - not a pilot/driver. At that point, no pilot's license would be required as long as you operate within this control network.

Re:Does anyone read

[merc]

Does anyone read
All these questions were answered in the provided link. Just go to the FAQ section.

You're new here, aren't you?

Revenge of the Nerds?

[J. Random Luser]

Way to go! Neiman Marcus /.ed
Opening Catalog...Opening Catalog...

*sighs*

[plonk420]

and i don't understand /. posting markup to save my butt, nor know how to hit the preview button X)

Are we ready for these types of technologies?

[JimBrownie]

Hello to everyone is slashdot, this is my first post. I just wonder will society ever be ready for forms of technology that require more than "point and click". I mean these days, with all teh science and technology out there, still wouldn't know how to set the time in a VCR. With technilogical progression, shouldn't our grasp of these technologies rise as well. Computers were suppose to make time for more work, more discovery, not for more leisure. If we continue to use technology as a crutch and not as a tool, regression is inevitable. We've all seen the Sci-Fi interpretation, civilizations lost due to ignorance and sloth. Just food for thought i guess i'll stop now lol

Re:Are we ready for these types of technologies?

[Jippy T Flounder]

whatever. i'm going back to counterstrike now...

*pats robot slave on head*

Dreamboat Limited-Edition Levitating Sculpture

[J. Random Luser]

Also from Neiman Marcus' Xmas Catalog. A 6 foot polished aluminum canoe/egg shaped object floats by mag-lev above a polished mahogany plinth. Slightly less practical than the air-car, but proven technology, a snip at $90k, and cheaper to run I guess...

Re:Nice. // FAA cert, Don't count on it.

[jimmydevice]

A coworker purchased all the glossies and specs for "the peoples" flying car in 1993. Its design hasn't changed since then. I thought Mitsubishi ???? bought Moller out back then? Personally, I wouldn't take it around the block without a parachute.

Jim.
Having experienced a FAA cert to DO-178B level B, It would cost tens of millions and another 20 years to certify that deathtrap, If ever.

the Crackpots called, they want their idea back

[Swampfeet]

Next thing you'll be telling me is that Gravity is a government conspiracy.

Most airplanes with asymmetric airfoils do not usually remain inverted for long, but can be flown inverted with lots of negative alpha and a lot of power applied (provided the plane has top tank feeds and a pressure fueled carburetor or fuel injection), or through maneuvers where there is always positive G (like a barrel roll).

If you watch a non-aerobatic airplane do a simple aileron roll at an airshow, you'll notice the first thing the pilot does is to pull the nose up a bit into a climb right before executing the roll, because as soon as the roll angle gets past 90 degrees, the vertical component of lift goes to zero, and the plane sinks until the roll passes the 270 degree point. Assuming no elevator input during the roll, of course.

Most every specialized aerobatic airplane ever built (like the Extra 300) has what's called a 'symmetrical airfoil' which in cross section has no difference in its shape whether inverted or right side up. Bernoulli's theorem applies no matter what attitude an airfoil is in - you generate lift (and induced drag) in proportion to AOA.

An asymmetric airfoil (what you find on your 172's, Lears, 737's) is just not nearly as efficient when inverted as a symmetric one is.

In fact, there really is no "inverted" for a symmetric airfoil at all, only the human being carried by it regards such conventions.

All that said, this Moller is indeed a complete charlatan; I've been seeing his bullshit in the backs of magazines for around 25 years, at least.

You can't fly at speeds over 250 knots around cities anyway, so the 350 figure is meaningless for intracity commuting.

Gratuitous...

[NeuroManson]

Road? Where we're going, we don't NEED roads.

Moller is a nut

[Anonymous Coward]

Ask anyone from Davis, CA. He is a quack, not an aeronautical engineer. He got rich with a clever engine silencer design (Supertrapp) but his aviation credentials are non-existent. Having spent over 10 years around the Davis airport (unlike him, I am a pilot) I never saw him and nobody there has ever seen him around.

He is a con, and has been peddling the same gee-whiz, Buck Rogers techno-utopia for (too) many years.

What I'd really like to see is this guy test his 'sky car'. It might have a little trouble with powered takeoff, but thats ok, I'm sure we can find someone to launch him and his contraption from another airplane!

To all the nay sayers...

[Mostly a lurker]

... this is in a catalog of fantasy gifts. Who said it was illegal to hawk a $3.5 million fantasy?

Moller: Almond butter is the key to life extension

[Anonymous Coward]

He also thinks that almond butter is the key to life extension. Eccentric would be an understatement here. http://www.moller.com/about/history/lifeext/

That will probably mean..

[thrill12]

..most people can't ever fly a car without some serious artificial intelligence built-in. I myself took quite a while for my drivers-licence in the Netherlands, were they do have very high standards + high costs for getting a licence.
I am not pilot-stuff, so most likely am not really any good for a flying car, except as already stated - parked in someone else's home...

Instead of focussing on the technology to get a car flying, why not focus on the technology to control an object safely in 3D, with hazard-avoidance built-in ? And while your at it, spend a little more time on the flying-technology itself and use hydrogen as a fuel-source: 'two flies in one swat'.

Re:That will probably mean..

[kabz]

Countries like the Netherlands, Garmany and to a lesser extent the UK, aren't really raising standards by having relatively more difficult driving education and tests. They are trying to ration access to driving. However, with rationing, the price of all aspects is artificially raised.

In the US, driving is cheap, and the driving test, at least here in Texas is really quite easy to pass. Hence generally lower cost.

The real kicker is that the accident rate is not significantly reduced by controlling assholes. There may be some corollary in here about the % of jerks on the road more or less remaining constant.

Re:That will probably mean..

[BasilBrush]

Your theory doesn't tally with the facts.

In the UK at least, the number of road fatalities has been falling every year for more then 60 years. This despite the fact that the number of cars has been increasing. Now of course some of this will be explained by better technology, brakes, street lightling etc. But part of it is rising standards in what it takes to get a license. At one time, training and license used to last about 5 minutes, simply describing what each of the controls do. Occasionally you see old film footage of people driving back then. Scary!

Re:That will probably mean..

[Firethorn]

Neither in yours, give that it's been falling in the USA for the same period
Reference: All told, 42,636 people died on the nation's highways in 2004, down from 42,884 in 2003. The fatality rate per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT) was 1.46 in 2004, down from 1.48 in 2003. The fatality rate has been steadily improving since 1966 when 50,894 people died and the rate was 5.5.

Overall deaths can actually go up while having the VMR and per 100,000 rates go down because the USA, more so than Europe, is still increasing in population.

Re:That will probably mean..

[BasilBrush]

Neither in mine what? Nothing I said is contradicted by a fall in fatalities in the US. In fact it adds to it.

Re:That will probably mean..

[utnow]

By showing that fatalities fell in places where driver's licenses are easy to get as well as where they are difficult to get, he was trying to show that the difficulty of the certification process makes little difference in the decrease of fatalities. Instead these are due to the increased technologies (stronger vehicles, seatbelts, better designed road systems, etc)

Re:That will probably mean..

[Locke2005]

use hydrogen as a fuel-source For the last time, hydrogen is NOT a fuel source; it is an energy storage medium. That's like saying "Use batteries as a fuel source!" Unless, of course, you know something about portable hydrogen-powered fusion reactors that I don't...

Re:That will probably mean..

[rob_squared]

"it is an energy storage medium."

Wait there a minute, are you telling me that gasoline *isn't* a storage medium for energy?

Re:That will probably mean..

[Rude Turnip]

When you get oil from the ground, the energy is already in it. You have to create a chemical reaction to get hydrogen.

Re:That will probably mean..

[grape jelly]

You are overlooking the fact that cars have gotten much safer over that time period as well. A more accurate statistic would be number of accidents per n miles travelled. Either that, or coupling your stats with the number of fatalities per n accidents would accomplish the same goal.

Re:That will probably mean..

[Rei]

Instead of focussing on the technology to get a car flying, why not focus on the technology to control an object safely in 3D, with hazard-avoidance built-in?

Something that most people commenting on this article seem to be unaware of is that is precisely what Moller is doing - in fact, that's one of the only major systems not yet complete (they also need to get the production-line engines from Rotary). Moller is proud of the fact that the system they're working on is "fly by wire" - that is, you don't fly the craft so much as you tell it where to fly, and it does the work. It's only partly done currently, however.

Also, for the people commenting on the tethers: it flies with slack tethers, not taut tethers; there's a huge difference. It *has* to fly on tethers until they get the go-ahead from their insurance - and that won't happen until they have the Milk Farm testing facility setup (basically, a large, constant-depth artificial lake). As is, current testing has involved flying it out of ground effect, under weight shifts, and under light wind.

And while your at it, spend a little more time on the flying-technology itself and use hydrogen as a fuel-source: 'two flies in one swat'.

Hydrogen is not a fuel source, and due to its low density would be particularly bad in this case. Hydrogen is questionable enough in rocketry, wherein it is liquid and can reduce its tanking requirements by scale. Here, with small tanks, and the only way to realistically get good density is by embedding it in a (mass-adding) material, it's a poor choice.

Now, mind you, the Rotapower engines that the skycar uses *are* multifuel (multifuel engines of all types are becoming more common, as it's mostly an issue of timings and mixing ratios, which can be computer-controlled). Best performance comes from ethanol. Also, the efficiency numbers that they're getting on their current engines are better than they previously predicted - 22.5 mpg at 200-250mph, 18.75 mpg at 300 mph, 16.25 at 350 mph, and it goes down from there. 22.5mpg, for four passengers (and it looks reasonably roomy - more than a lot of coupes I've seen) is better than a good number of cars.

The biggest problems you'll see with these is the same problem you experience with light planes: expense, special takeoff facilities, and lack of roadworthiness. However, they do reduce these downsides: No wings makes it roadworthy at low speeds, the takeoff facility requirements are greatly reduced, and the expense should be lower even without widespread adoption. Good performance and milage as well (especially compared to its VTOL competition, helicopters). If they can get widespread adoption (for example, "air taxi" service, or military/rescue roles), I think they'll have it made. If not, they'll just serve the same role as a really light plane - just one that looks really neat. :)

Re:That will probably mean..

[lucien86]

Hmmm. The skycar is already being designed to do this. If you read its background docs all you will have to do is enter the destination you want to fly to and it does Everything else. :)

Curiously, self drive vehicles are actually one of the target applications for the AI system I am working on. \And I wouldn't want to be in front of it or anywhere near that skycar when it crashes in-flight. The AI that is, the car will generally crash slightly later. (and even that will not be true every time)

Actually the skycar is a pretty sophisticated machine, those engines are very impressive and with its computer assisted controls it really shouldn't need that much training to fly.

Re:That will probably mean..

[lucien86]

Aaggh the first post on a new board and dyslexia strikes again. "(and even that will not be true every time)" - what I really meant was that the software will often crash after the car. Sorry.

If you think I am being cynical ask yourself, 'what is AI?'. Its basically big C programs with lots of really complex pointers. The most difficult part of AI I have seen so far is the memory management in the base layer. Another problem is that it does not enjoy sharing a computer with an operating system, a problem that is almost to obscene to mention. AI is difficult and not very reliable.

Re:That will probably mean..

[Firethorn]

Are people in Europe driving unsafer cars? I was simply responding to the boast that, due to their higher driving standards, their fatality rate has been dropping. I countered that the same thing has been happening in the USA.

My source also lists fatality rates for miles traveled, abreviated VMT(vehicle miles travelled), which I fat fingered into VMR. It's been a while, but I actually believe that America as a slightly better VMT accident rate than Germany. We're safer per mile, but we drive so much more...

The Jetsons?

[Rhinobird]

or were you thinking of a different movie?

Pie-in-the-sky-car PR.

[realitybath1]

No traffic*, no red lights*, no speeding tickets*. Just quiet* direct transportation from point A to point B *

*Except air traffic.
*Ignore the blinking oil-light... we're not quite sure what's up with that.
*Beware shoot to kill policy in restricted flight zones.
*Excepting high air-flow and engine noise levels.
*A,B at least 20 miles outside large urban centre peripheral boundaries.

I finally get to say it first in a thread...

[Hosiah]

"Yeah, but does it run Linux?"

Just imagine...

[davmoo]

Okay, I can't resist...even though it goes against my better judgement, someone's gotta say it, and it might as well be me.

Just imagine a beowulf cluster of these...

Moller again

[ardor]

Moller lost almost all of his credibility by now. If he wants people to believe him, then he should provide test drives for anyone. Show us the skycars!

Profit!

[cowboy76Spain]

Let's see the numbers:

1) Get 75 PWMANB (People With Money And No Brains) to give you 74.625.000$
2) Get 100 PWMANB to give you 75.000.000$.
3) Get 400 PWMANB to give you 200.000.000$.
4) Put your 349.625.000$ in a guaranteed fund, to get 1% a year (as a minimum) for three years.
5) Wait for three years.
6) Return the 349.625.000$ to the 575 PWMANB, claming that the prototype is not ready/the FAA did not want them/a lobby from other company pressed to get it banned.
7) Keep the 3.495.250 yearly of interest earned $$$$.
8) Claim that you are getting your ultimate prototype for 2013....

Anyone wants to give me a deposit so I can claim their terrain at the Moon when I become its emperor??? Refund granted!

Chocolate Chip?

[B747SP]

Is it just me or is Neiman Marcus only famous for the cookie recipe urban myth that has been doing the rounds in various forms since the beginning of time? OK, so I'm from Sydney, Australia, but I've never heard of the company in any other context before this story.

Re:Chocolate Chip?

[benwb]

Neiman marcus is a high end department store in the us, sometimes referred to as Needluss Markup for their high prices (but excellent service). Every year in their christmas catalog they have one really crazy thing that you can buy- a tropical island, a learjet, matching his/hers humanoid robots, etc...

Re:Chocolate Chip?

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people in the southern US hadn't heard of it until a country singer mentioned it in a song a couple of years ago, don't sweat it.

Re:Chocolate Chip?

[uncoveror]

Their needless markups serve a purpose. A lot of rich people think that only expensive things are any good. If it is cheap, it must be garbage. You can create the illusion of high quality for such people just by inflating the price of things. It can be the same shit that Sears sells, but since the average Neiman Marcus shopper has never been in a Sears, they will never know.

Re:Chocolate Chip?

[rpresser]

In Nethack, if you are hallucinating on a level where there exists a living shopkeeper, you may hear "You hear Neiman and Marcus arguing!"

Re:Chocolate Chip?

[booch]

OK, what was the purpose of the markup then? I mean besides to make the store money -- that's a given. But what's the purpose to the customer that you were implying?

Re:Chocolate Chip?

[uncoveror]

What value does it offer the customer? The ability to flaunt wealth, to "keep up with the Joneses". He who dies with the most toys wins. I have more money than you, so I have nicer things than you. To the affluent, shopping at a place where the rest of us can't feels good. Neiman Marcus makes that kind of shopper feel special.

Re:Chocolate Chip?

[booch]

I still don't think it quite follows. I'd agree with you if you said that "expensive things" have a value to the customer. But that doesn't mean that things with excessive mark-ups have a value to the customer. For one, your own statements contradict that idea. "I have nicer things than you" does not apply if we both get the same thing, but you paid a lot more than I did. And you will not "die with the most toys" if you spend more on the same toys than I do.

Re:Chocolate Chip?

[uncoveror]

There are people who just love to be seen with a Neiman Marcus, Macy's or other upscale store's shopping bags, and the goodies within. While the markups at such places are excessive to a sensible shopper, they are apparently not so to rich spendthrifts who keep shopping there, and wouldn't be caught dead at Sears or JC Penney. They are buying an image, an illusion. Upscale stores are happy to sell them this, just as they are eager to buy it. I can tell that you have more sense then to fall for that, as do I, but those stores are still in business. They have identified something a certain demographic wants, and are providing it. Their shoppers do see a value in what we would consider being ripped off.

Re:Chocolate Chip?

[booch]

Their shoppers do see a value in what we would consider being ripped off.

I suppose I can agree with you on that point, at least.

Re:Nice. // FAA cert, Don't count on it.

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a Science84 Magazine (from 1984) which has an ad for the MOLLER SKYCAR in which it says it will be available before 1990!

The only thing Moller seems to be good at is bilking investors out of their cash.

This Neiman-Marcus crap is like the "pepsi harrier jumpjet" promotion -- they don't figure anyone will be able to buy it anyway. What they need is someone to come along, pay the money, then sue Moller out of existence.

Nice suckerware

[Safety Cap]

Hey, look it's the prototype!

Isn't that the same "prototype" that has been offered for sale for the past 15-odd years?

Funny how it never makes it into "production"... Oh well, for only $25k, you can get on the list to receive a newsletter about how you're going to get one Real Soon Now, except you don't get the newsletter.

Hey, I hear you can get some green powder that changes Water into GASOLINE, for only $0.08US/gallon!!! The investment price is good: only $1,000US!

Hurry!

As a pilot

[mtibbitts]

I look at the skycar with lustful thoughts. But the skycar has been a denizen of what-if land for DECADES. Personally I give a much greater chance of success to: http://www.amvaircraft.com/index.html Martin Tibbitts LCR Telecommunications

Possibly a bit more "real" ...

[notpaul]

Hard to say without a thorough examination, but it does appear that these guys: http://www.urbanaero.com/Urban_Main.htm/ may have a bit more going on than Mr. Moller.

It's geek snake oil...

[Anonymous Coward]

$3.5 million for the priviledge of the first jug of hair tonic or youth serum to come off the production line? Sorry, if I'm going to buy obvious snail-oil, its got to be more modest in price. I also prefer buying from people who haven't been announcing product availability "in a few years" for even longer than Duke Nukem Forever has been in development.

Re:Nice. // FAA cert

[Inyu]

Moller is not alone saying that the flying cars will soon become more popular.: http://www.macroindustries.com/website/files/skyri der/sr-index.htm (planning the first model after 5 years).

Quiet transportation?

[mpn14tech]

From the videos I have seen of this thing flying, I think
screaming banshee would be a better description.

I think you would get fewer complaints from the neighbors
if you spent your millions on a helicopter or a Harrier
jump jet.

Sept 11 taught American's nothing

[TheSkepticalOptimist]

Given the difficulty to hijack a plane and crash it into a building, now give the general populace the ability to easily buy a "skycar" (from a department store no less). No building or person will be safe from disgruntled postal workers and angry muslim extremists.

The only way 3D traffic will work is if its 100% automated. You can only "fly" your car to work along automated systems where you have no control over the direction or speed of the flying vehicle, you simply sit back, enter a destination, and let the skycar take you to your destination.

No matter how much training people get with skycar's, it will become a disaster to allow Joe Bob Sixpack keys to a skycar that he can drive with unlimited freedom. People can't even drive to work without getting into an accident, let alone those ignorant slobs that drive drunk leaving a path of distruction and death in their wake. Training doesn't make you responsible, it just gives you access to a greater weapon.

I for one will be fearful of the day that people start driving Skycar's without any automation in place.

Re:Sept 11 taught American's nothing

[Phs2501]

Then I guess you must already be pretty fearful now.

Re:Sept 11 taught American's nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL i have to say, im sick and tired of references to 9/11. We know full well that bush & co KNEW Al Quada were going to hit us, and probably with air planes. As with Kuwait, they allowed what they thought would be a small attack, as a foundation for an all out war on Islam, and middle eastern countries. It's all about control-resources, cultural, etc.

9/11 was NOT about terriorists attacking the US. It WAS about our ongoing nightmare called "foreign policy", and how we prop up evil foreign govts (ie. saddam), and when we don't need them any more, goad them into extreme actions and then chop their heads off.

Sure, America learned something from 9/11.

* Our "safety" is more important than our civil rights
* We are guilty until proven innocent
* Islam is a smokescreen for terror
* Sadam attacked the US/Sadam had the means to attack the US..etc
* Every other country is jealous of our "freedoms"
* America is the defacto police force of the world
* Republicans are chicken hawks, and democrats are just chickens
* might makes right.

What 9/11 has really shown us is that Americans generally ARE ignorant, of low intelligence and extremely selfish--all of which are a recipe for easy brainwashing by our state sponsored media propagandists.

Notice how much of this rhetoric copies pre-nazi germany? Indeed fascist govt's have used national pride and security as smoke screens toward complete police states.

From now on, if you want to bring up 9/11, how about you also discuss what it has done to this great nation and how our foreign policy for the last 60 years lead up to it.

Re:Sept 11 taught American's nothing

[be-fan]

That's an utterly retarded statement. If the terrorists wanted, they could build their own planes. It's not that damn hard. You can build the damn things in your garage! By themselves, they don't have enough mass to do jack shit to a building (even a car-sized one), so you'd have to load them up with C4. Then, you'd have a weapons delivery platform about as attractive, as, well, getting some guy to strap-on some C4 and run into the damn building! Hell, for the price of one of these sky cars, you can get a couple of dozen guys to do it. That becomes a far more attractive delivery platform than the sky car, because now you don't have a single point of failure.

Re:Sept 11 taught American's nothing

[Legion303]

"No building or person will be safe from disgruntled postal workers and angry muslim extremists."

You're an idiot. Thanks for stopping by.

You mean with a SkyHook?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or were you thinking of some sort of fishing pole?

Top Ten Reasons Most People Won't Get One of These

[Anonymous Coward]

10. If this actually goes into production, I can just about guarantee that every city (in the US) will have an ordinance banning use of it on city streets or in residential areas. Flying into downtown? Get real. Even if you could legally do so, it would only be with a registered flight plan and about 30 or 40 different forms filled out in quadruplicate to the city, local airport, FAA, et cetera. Forget the paperwork? Just make sure you have your radio on so that the guys in the F16's don't think you're ignoring them. So essentially, unless you live in a rural area and are flying to another rural area, you will have to start from one airport and go to another airport to land. For that much money, you could buy an awfully nice passenger jet (and crew).

9. Your 4 year old manages to start your car, if lucky, he can get it into gear and probably get a quarter of a mile before running into something at a low speed and causing minor damage. If he manages to keep going until somebody sees him and notifies police, a police cruiser can just pull in front of him and slow him down forcefully - usually nobody dies. Your 4 year old manages to start up your hover car, somehow taps the throttle lever to wide-open, and somehow gets pointed towards an officebuilding. Unless you have a really sophisticated autopilot that can either proactively take control and land or be remotely prompted to take control, somebody's going to die. You can't pull an F16 in front of another aircraft and just tap the brakes!

8. Even if you don't get stuck in a line of traffic on the street, you'd still be stuck in line waiting to land (unless in a rural area).

7. Put one in the air, no big deal. Have about 10% of current commuters in the air on a daily basis... hello speed limits.

6. Streets good. Powerlines bad.

5. Ever forget your briefcase on the roof? Good luck finding it this time...

4. That little old lady driving 20mph below the speed limit with her left blinker constantly on is just as annoying when she's flying 20 knots under the speed limit with the left blinker constantly on.

3. Ever let your dog hang it's head out of the window on the freeway? (WHOOOSH!!) Fifi? Where are you Fifi!!!

2. With those engines sticking out so far, how do you think you will be able to reach the window at the Starbuck's drive-thru?

1. With $3.5 million in the bank, you could start your own company to develop a Star Trek-like transporter system that has a rolling 5-year public release date. Start taking investments and pre-orders and you'd be set for life. Or at least the next 5 years, and the next 5 years after that, ...

Skycar will never truly fly

[Nick Driver]

The Moller Skycar will NEVER be able to fly the way he claims. First of all it's a purely vectored-thrust, powered-lift machine. All flying machines of this type are inherently unstable as hell. If any component in its controls or thrust systems fails, the machine will be wildly uncontrollable. Think bottle-rocket with the stick removed... wild unpredictable flight path... firey crashing death to any occupants of the vehicle. These kind of flying machines are very difficult to keep under control and are also *extremely* fuel-hungry. Look at the size of the Skycar, how much fuel tank capacity do you think it has. Not much? You're right. How many engines will the M400 have? EIGHT 150hp dual-rotor wankels. You know how much gasoline a 150hp engine uses? About 7.5 gallons per hour if you lean the mixture to the point where it barely runs, and of course is not putting out the full 150hp at that point. At full 150hp 100% output, such an engine will burn about 11 gallons per hour. At low altitudes, you'll need full power from all eight engines to keep the thing in the air since all the thrust will be doing the duty of lift vector. That's almost 90 gallons per hour fuel burn at full power! FAA regs say that an aircraft cannot even take off for daytime VFR flight without enough fuel to complete the flight plus a 1/2 hour reserve. Moller is now saying that he expects to run the engines on alcohol instead of gas. Well, any high school kid who has just begin to learn about engines and fuels can tell you that it takes almost 2 gallons of alcohol to do the work of 1 gallon of gasoline in an internal combustion engine. I call shenanigans on this machine. Anybody who thinks this is a viable flying machine is smoking crack.

Moller should've just stuck to making SuperTrapp mufflers for motorcycles, at least that is a successful design that works quite well. Or work some more on that wankel engine to finish getting it up to snuff for small conventional airplanes. If they could get that 150hp dual-rotor wankel to have at least a 1500 hour TBO and equipped with a planetary gear reduction drive to keep the prop at about 2700-2800 max rpm at full power, they could sell a lot of these engines to the experimental airplane homebuilders, and perhaps a de-rated 100-120hp version to the Light Sport aircraft makers That's where the real money could be.

Re:Skycar will never truly fly

[Anonymous Coward]

What a downer! Jeez! If everyone were like you, there would be no inventions, no advancement, and we'd still be back in the stone age.

It sounds like you haven't ever read the moller.com web-page. The SuperTrap came about because of Moller's need to make the dual-rotor wankel engine more efficient, while at the same time reducing/tuning the noise. The dual-rotor wankel was worked on, because he needed a more powerful, more efficient, high power to weight engine to power his skycar. He's actually selling and marketting the engine for other uses. These are side-effects of his dream of a flying car. They are profitable enough for him to continue his research.

It's a good thing there are people like Moller who dare to chase after their dreams, otherwise, there'd be no airplanes, no automobiles, no computers, no DaVinci's, no Michaelangelo's, no innovation. We'd still be living off the land and hunting with sticks and stones.

Re:Skycar will never truly fly

[ug333]

I'm no expert, but I thought part of his idea was to make the AI capable of doing most of the flying, to deal with the instability you are talking about. The claim is that with an engine failure, the vehicle would still be able to land due to redundant engines (8 instead of 4). I've actually heard a speach by Dr. Moller, and the other claim was that in the long run, AI would have to do 95% of the flying to keep the skyways safe. For example, it would force an altitude change if you made a direction change, to keep you flowing with the traffic. I agree with his logic on this part. I know nothing about the physics of flight, so I won't even try to respond to your other comments.

Flying cars...

[Nick Driver]

We've already had a Flying Car since 1979.

What's with the Price?

[microcars]

Neiman Marcus offers it for $3.5 million

Moller's website offers it for a list price of $995,000

You can't fly either one yet. Is he just hoping to sell the Prototype as a Garage Trophy?
Or is this just a publicity stunt? (hey, it worked)

Screw the Flying Car

[camusflage]

I'm waiting for the more environmentally friendly Hoverbike to be released!

The Elephant in the Room is not the Motor.

[Ubiquitous88]

Aircars in a post 9/11 world? Even if Moller succeeds in the next decade - and even if the FAA approves his machine - can you really see the Dept. of Homeland Security letting these things within range of an office building? And would you want them to? The George Jetson dream was born in the middle of the last century, when Americans by and large thought that technology would be used for the best possible purposes and that everyone likes the good ol' USA. The car catches the imagination, yes. But it also is a dream of another era.

Where are the flying cars?

[CrazyTalk]

They promised us flying cars! Where are the flying cars? Oh wait...

Re:Where are the flying cars?

[runner_one]

Before the flying car can ever be practical another means to lift and support of it's mass other than aerodynamics MUST be developed.
As it stands today whether you use jet engines, piston engines, or rotary engines and turbines, helicopter blades, or enclosed fans like the Moller. You are still lifting mass by moving large quantities of air around. This takes too much mechanical engineering as well as too much energy consumption by burning some type of chemical fuel. There is just too much that has to be just right to fly in this way, just one thing goes wrong and BOOM you just made a nice crater in the ground.
To make the flying car really practical there will have to be another way to get mass off the ground.
There has been some research in this area for may years, but usually it is considered fringe science, many people and companies distance themselves from it the moment you use the term Anti-Gravity, so call it whatever you want, Mass Reduction, Electro-kinetic lift or even Magnetic field lift. (In Star Wars they called it Repulser- Lift). The Point is there has to be another way to get in the air, if it exists It's just waiting for someone to discover it. Only then will we see real flying cars.

Re:Where are the flying cars?

[be-fan]

That's nonsense. Flying can be a rather efficient way of getting around. Aerodynamics kinda kick you in the ass for high-speed flight, but for low-speed flight its actually kind of friendly. There are high-lift devices being developed that can give aircraft an L/D of 45 or so. That means with a 100 lb thrust miniature jet engine, you can lift a 4500 lb car-sized vehicle. The trick is getting that 100 lb of thrust efficiently. The most efficient jet engines in the world have an sfc at sea-level of 0.3. For a 100 lb thrust engine, that's about 30 lb of fuel per hour. If you get such a plane to a cruise speed of 300 mph (entirely possible with today's technology), then you're talking about 70 mpg, more efficient than most cars.

The trick is figuring out propulsion. Today's small jet engines are several times less efficient than the 70,000lb behemoths that achieve 0.3 sfc. That's not inherent to the technology, however. It's more of an engineering problem, trying to miniaturize the high-pressure high-temperature technologies enough to fit in a jet engine targetted for 100lb of thurst.

Skycar/Moller a 40 year con

[Teahouse]

This guy has never made a functioning prototype. He has scammed hundreds of venture capitalists over the years promising the inevitable "breakthrough" in just a "few more years." His current iteration (the M400) has been awaiting a non-tethered test flight for 5 years now. First it was the insurance, then it was the engine, now it's waiting for a man-made lake to test this thing over. The reality is that this thing can't get higher than ground effect. He is no closer to a flying car today than he was in 1972. I am so sick of this guy getting press for his failure. There are real flying car vehicles out there, Moller isn't one of them. He's a long-term grifter, nothing more.

Re:Skycar/Moller a 40 year con

[justins]

That's kind of interesting, in a way. If someone shells out $3.5 million to Neiman Marcus, they're going to expect it to live up to something close to its "specifications." I don't think Neiman Marcus will be happy if the thing ends up making them look bad...

Finally!

[NotherKindOfNerd]

"Moller International has developed the first and only feasible, personally affordable, personal vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) vehicle the world has ever seen." Riiiiiiight...

Not enough mass

[Teahouse]

Flying "car" projects don't have enough mass to make a big impact on a building. Even the twin towers were designed to take a full hit from a 707, but 30 years later, a 767 holds a lot more fuel, people, and mass.

Also, if these vehicles are ever viable, they will be automated. If not, then the licencing process will remain similar to the FAA regs for current pilots. That is too involved to attract a lot of the ninnys that would fly one of these into a building.

Basically, neither of your points are really valid enough to warrant not developing the technology. They are longshots what-if's. By your logic, we should outlaw driving because a few terrorists could drive their cars into the front af a shop. It's certainly a possibility, but not a very likely or productive one.

Frankly, the most efficient terror applied to this nation was the DC sniper. He pretty much hijacked an entire region with one rifle and two guys. He was more efficient than the anthrax attacks or 9/11.

I guess the future is finally here...

[merc]

I always found it amusing, artists' renditions of what the anticipated future of society would look like. I always used to ask myself "where are the flying cars we're supposed to have?" I think I've also heard comedians joking about this same thing.

Joking aside, I realize this type of toy is quite cost prohibitive. But what if someday it is not?

Perhaps the questions we should be asking are "Is it a GOOD IDEA if everyone were flying about aimlessly in their skycars?" "How will we manage license and maintain an infrastructure for something like this?"

Personally I don't think these questions will be answered anytime soon, probably never.

Re:I guess the future is finally here...

[silverbax]

When automobiles reached speeds of 18 mph, people stated that no one should move that fast. It was also stated that humans would suffer from a lack of oxygen and die at such demonic speeds.

28 MPG?

[the eric conspiracy]

Interesting. Is that 28 miles calculated based on a sample of vertical travel (down) with the engine off or idling?

Mod parent down, -1 Completely Uniformed

[birge]

You have no idea what you're talking about, so please don't post about aviation. The 'highway in the sky' is a concept that has been bouncing around NASA for quite a while, and involves nothing more than the presentation of existing navigational routes to the pilot in an intuitive way, as if s/he were flying on a virtual highway. In no way does it imply there will be aircraft flying in close proximity. The same rules and conventions separating aircraft would apply. Furthermore, one facet of the proposal is to have traffic information integrated into the display, making the concept even safer in terms of collision avoidance.

But thanks for contributing your ignorance to the public. We already have enough reasons for the public to be irrationally afraid of progress in private aviation, thank you.

You're also wrong about Moller. The recent progress on the skycar has been significant due to improvements in engine technology and avionics. While nobody can be sure he'll get everything together, he is definitely closer than he's ever been, and tethered flight is still flight.

not a lot.

[circusboy]

my last license cost about $24, there was a 10 minute written test, it was valid for 2 birthdays, which due to a quirk in scheduling means it expired in 366 days. the california one was a slightly longer test. it was valid for 5 years I think? it's been a while I don't recall the california rules...

my original test including a 15 minute actual driving test I believe was under $100, but that was nearly 20 years ago. that was for the learner's permit at age 15, then a real license at 16.

classes and training were optional, but proof of having taken them dropped your insurance rates something huge.

so as you cross the street in the US, be afraid, be very afraid...

Powder + Water = Gasoline

[rlp]

Safety Cap wrote: Hey, I hear you can get some green powder that changes Water into GASOLINE ...

It is possible to create a powder that mixes with water to create gasoline. Years ago, while taking Organic Chemistry in college, I learned about the Grignard reaction. This synthesis can produce a solid that when mixed with water can hydrolyse to produce a hydrocarbon.

Just two minor problems - 1) It also produces an alkali (such as KOH or NaOH) which would be bad for the engine and the environment, and 2) the initial synthesis starts with a hydrocarbon! TANSTAAFL

Would have been handy last week

[SpiceWare]

I'd have been able to make it out of Houston during the Rita Exodus.

Not with four rotary engines it won't

[TigerNut]

The SkyCar was (is?) powered by four hopped-up Mazda rotary (Wankel) engines. These were never either frugal, or quiet - especially if they're ported for increased performance.

Re:Not with four rotary engines it won't

[ErikZ]

Why would you have to hop them up? If anything, since you have redundant engines, you can reduce their power.

http://www.monito.com/wankel/aircraft.html

That page points out a wankel engine that runs on 10 liters per hour, or 2.6 gallons. Now, if that plane is going 200 miles an hour, that's 77 miles per gallon.

Get it?

Re:Not with four rotary engines it won't

[TigerNut]

I got that part... However, four engines quadruple the fuel consumption, and as it turns out I was wrong... the prototype uses eight engines. At eighty liters per hour, even at 200 MPH (which is actually a pretty good clip for a general-aviation type aircraft) you're getting under 10 MPG. Since each engine (or each pair... not totally clear) drives one ducted fan assembly, you don't have a lot of redundancy unless it can be shown that you can effectively differentially-thrust the engines to maintain stability even if you lose one of the four thruster pods.

Re:Not with four rotary engines it won't

[ErikZ]

I think it's each pair. So if one dies, the other can drive the fan.

And until we get more info, it's pretty much impossible to know how much fuel the thing uses. (shrug)

wouldn't this be faa regulated?

[josepha48]

I'm thinking that this would fall into the aircraft area, not really a car. Wouldn't this be regulated by the FAA then?

So would you need a pilot license or drivers license or both?

NOt to put a downer on things, but what happens if this got into the wrong hands? Wouldn't this be something the military would want? I could definately see its potential use as a weapon. At 350MPH, you could drop a bobm in seatle and be out of there in no time.

Re:wouldn't this be faa regulated?

[Deadstick]

At 350MPH, you could drop a bobm in seatle and be out of there in no time.

Think how many bombs you could deliver with $3.5 mil worth of Ryder Trucks.

rj

Noise Pollution?

[the_REAL_sam]

To be honest I cannot even afford 1% of a mollier skycar.

But even if I could, I really prefer that the sky over my house not be broadcasting commuter noise down at me.

I have to ask how much noise pollution the things make. I suspect it would suck (in a major way) for rush hour traffic to be a bunch of molliers booming over my house.

Here in California, it seems like the highways broadcast noise for a mile or two sometimes - although obstructed by buildings and trees. So there is a perfect example of a technology that suits the individual driver (and GM of course), meanwhile causing harm to everybody else, driver or not. And that's after they've had 100 YEARS to get it right.

Then I ask if they would be under airplane regulations. Would they only be able to land in helipads and airports?

21 miles per gallon on alcohol

[the_REAL_sam]

From the article: "The Skycar ... boasts ... 21 miles per gallon on alcohol."

But that doesn't sound very safe. What is the mileage while the driver is sober? =D

Parent isn't terribly informed either

[AB3A]

The Highway In The Sky concept is something that has been evolving ever since the dawn of aviation. We've used different tools. In the 1920s and 1930s we used ranges with lights at night. When the weather turned sour, they used AN radio ranges and Non-Directional Beacons. That technology lasted for many years. Later in the 1950s we migrated to VHF OmniRange (VOR) technology. It lead from the AN ranges, to the "Golf" airways to the "Victor" airways. Today the skies are filled with Victor and Juliet (high altitude) airways. There ARE highways in the skies. Just ask any instrument pilot.

Today NDBs are being phased out. The VOR is still going to be around for at least the next decade. GPS and its ilk have taken over. Many, if not most, cockpits already have moving map displays. We don't need highways. We can navigate direct. But air traffic control systems have difficulty with this because they can't handle arbitrary waypoints from outside their sectors. The notion of a heads up display with a snaking tube of airspace in front has been knocked around in research halls for at least the last decade or so. It's merely the latest evolutionary thing from what we have been doing ever since the dawn of aviation.

Oh, and Moller has been at this skycar thing since the 1970s at least. I can remember reading about him in Popular Science when I was a kid. He has yet to produce a skycar that actually flies in any way remotely similar to what he claimed he could do. In fact, I've never even heard of his creations flying out of ground effect with a human being on board. Many whose opinions I have respect for question whether the engine technology Moller claims to use is thermodynamically capable of delivering the output he says he gets.

This man isn't selling anything but the appearance of a dream to the technically illiterate. You're welcome to believe that his project is only just around the corner. Just understand that he has a long track record going back decades. I'd rather believe in the tooth fairy than listen to still more BS from Moller.

Death To women's Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Death To women's Rights

Fuel efficiency?

[kbahey]

Tell me why someone would buy this for "$3.5 million US" yet is concerned about fuel economy of "up to 28 miles per gallon".

Seems contradictory ...

Considering the car has never flown

[Banner]

I don't think I'd waste the money on one. All flights have been on a 'tether' because they're afraid of 'wrecking the prototype'.

In short the design still has serious stability and control issues and this car WILL crash and probably KILL YOU.

Until Moeller is willing to actually FLY the thing, I wouldn't get near, much less IN, one.

Re:Nice. // FAA cert

[TigerNut]

Riiiight... From the SkyCar website:

Presently all test flights of the M400 Skycar employ a safety tether from above to protect the vehicle from catastrophic failure. Certainly during these early tests there are a number of failure modes with an aircraft that has 24 microprocessors and 25,000 lines of machine language software code.

Sounds like they need a software QA audit...

Apparently grammar school taught you nothing

[jjoyce]

Please study the use of the apostrophe in English.

Want a flying car?

[rasafras]

If you really want a safe, practical flying car... just get/build a personal autogyro. They have near-VTOL capabilities using the jump autorotation thing, are decently fuel efficient, and are fairly time-tested. The day Moller releases his skycar is the day I fly it to buy my copy of Duke Nukem Forever.

Basically...

[jpellino]

You're getting one of these.

Only bigger and redder.

40 hrs and $2,000 to get pilot's license ...

[Jerry]

is what it cost me in the USA in 1983.

And that was for a "single engine land" Visual Flight Rules pilot license.

From what I have been able to read this 'car' hasn't even achieved its FAA certification yet.

Regardless of how many computers it has those who plan to fly it should plan on qualifying for a "multi-engine land" Instrument Flight Rules pilot license. That was the second level of FAA pilot certification when I got my license and you had to have logged at least 300 hours in single engine aircraft before you'd be accepted for training for the multi-engine license. The designer of this car is trying to bypass current training regimens, and well he should. I shudder to imagine what would happen if you had Sally or Joe Sixpack trying to fly these things around the country, especially over my house!!

EVEN IF all you have to do is turn on the flight control computer, click on your destination, click a "GO" button and let a computer and GPS interface control your entire flight, without any need to learn how to fly, I'd hope that they'd require an AIRPLANE parachute to be installed, much like air-bags in cars today. Otherwise we'd be seeing Voluntar's playing pin-ball with houses when their embedded VISTA 2050 dies with a "BSOD".

SEC sued Moller for stock fraud in 2003

[kt0157]

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/lr17987. htm

K.

Driving test is about 1/2 hour long

[SuperKendall]

There's a written test that take perhaps a half hour to complete, and also a short driving test (mine was just around the block). Then you have to renew the licence every ten years or so (or perhaps it's five, it's been a long time since I had to do it) which just means a new picture and update of your address (no new testing).

From the Christmas Catalog

[iamlucky13]

This is hilariously coincidental, but I received a copy of the Neiman Marcus Christmas catalog addressed to the previous occupant of my house (no seriously...I'm not a sucker!), and I took it with me to the computer lab on campus to show my friends some of the outrageous prices (like $695.00 for a plain red turtleneck). Their two page ad for the Skycar really caught my eye, since I thought Moller had died and the car with him, and I didn't believe it until I saw the Slashdot article. On one page it says "Wow! Give them something to talk about." The next is a rendition of a skycar flying 10 feet over a meadow, with the sales pitch:

Skycar Prototype. Born too late for the Wright Brothers' first plane? Missed out on Henry Ford's Model T? You can still have a piece of transportation history: the prototype for an unprecedented mode of transportation that melds sci-fi and state-of-the-art technology. The M400 Skycar is the world's first personal vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) aircraft, designed to elevate individual drivers above the headaches of commuting and the dangers of highway travel. In development since the 1960's, the Skycar has completed successful hovering flights, and its first manned, un-tethered flight is planned for Fall 2005. Developed by Moller International, the three-wheeled, folding-wing craft is designed to be as safe, affordable, and easy to use as an automobile, traveling at 350+ miles per hour and achieving an environmentally friendly 21 miles per gallon on alcohol, a cleaner fuel than gasoline. And because most auto emissions occur at idle or low speeds, the M400 will produce less pollution by burning fuel more completely. A limited number of M400s is expected to be available within the next three years, but you can purchase the actual prototype for yourself or your favorite commuter now. For more information and to order, please call 1.877.9NM.GIFT.
Skycar prototype - 3,500,000.00 (delivery not included)*

*Neiman Marcus is acting as the advertiser for this product. Certain regulatory requirements must be met for purchase of this prototype, including International Traffic in Arms Regulations and Federal Aviation Administration authorization. A purchase agreement will need ot be signed by the purchaser

I can't believe I just typed that out. A general comment about the Skycar, though: If the Beech Starcraft wasn't able to be successful, I have serious doubts that this ever will be, even though it takes a different business approach. Also, I'm guessing the ITAR restriction is only if you want to export it, or do domestice buyers need clearance, too?

Neiman Marcus bargain: Grand Piano, only $4,500

[Anonymous Coward]

Why buy a million-dollar, untested "aircar" when you can have this:
http://www.neimanmarcus.com/store/catalog/prod.jht ml?cid=OCBF6_H11PY&cmCat=Christmas&spread=6&gid=32 7682&catalog=1&passback=&rfx_base=http%3A//neimans holiday.richfx.com.edgesuite.net/catalog_neimansho liday/holiday2005/&omni=1&catalog_base=http://www. neimanmarcus.com/store/sitelets/christmasbook/chri stmasbook.jhtml?&firstpage=6&PassBack=&catalog_nam e=holiday2005&catalog=1&o=1

totally off topic

[Ffakr]

This one's totally off topic but I'm still in shock.
We were driving in Chicago today and I've added a new one to the "now I've seen it all" list.

The guy in front of us remained stopped at a green light, it was clear that he was trying to talk out the passenger window of his car to a woman in another car. She was trying to exit a parking lot of a strip mall, he was blocking her by stopping his car in the middle of a traffic lane right in front of the parking lot exit. This was on a very busy street in Chicago.

My wife was driving and she hit the horn when it was clear he wasn't planning on actually driving through the green light any time soon. He responed by putting the car in park in the lane and getting out to talk to the woman. He looked into our car and I gave him the hands up and I clearly mouthed WTF.. he didn't seem to notice and we went to talk to the girl.
My wife pulled into the other lane to get around him before it escellated any more.

THAT is the quality of drivers in the United States.

We had flying "cars" for decades!

[Anonymous Coward]

We usualy call them "Cessnas".

Even cooler stuff

[Casandro]

Servus,

well you should see the 1963 catalog. There they had a really cool device. Your own television tape recorder, the VR1500. It even was just only $30000.

Well OK, the german company Loewe Opta introduced it's consumer VRs in 1961.

Personal Helicopter - Robinson R22

[Anonymous Coward]

Average cruise speed 110 mph, using 9.5 gal per hour of fuel. Outfitted for about $190,000. 2-seater. Higher than average accident rate - try the R44 for a more stable ride.

http://www.robinsonheli.com/

Hey, the cop car from Bladerunner!

[gevantry]

Or something like it. Cripes, and I bet people are tossing good cash down this flush hole. The only place air cars are ever going to fly for real is in the movies, which are--he-heh--fiction.

It sure did look cool in Bladerunner, though!

Homogeneous?

[bufalo_1973]

Here (in Majorca. Spain) the main problem are tourists. People that live here tend to drive normal (not everybody, but...) but tourists don't use turn lights, rear mirrors or anything else that has something to do with safety. You can't get close to a rented car without worrying about being hit or at least scared with an "imaginative way of driving".

People that live in Majorca mainly have a problem with brakes (too much use) but there aren't so many "kamikazes" to be afraid to drive on winter (almost no tourists)... except when it's raining.

P.S. : I think the main problem with driving is living in a big city. You get accustomed to drive as if you had your ass on fire.

Re:Homogeneous?

[birge]

In Boston, the main problem is people from Boston. Anyway, I'm guessing whatever causes the problems in your city, even if it's people from Italy, starts to make everybody drive like that out of neccessity. That's what I meant about homogeneity of driving. People, out of fear for their lives, are forced to adopt the driving habits of the most aggressive among them. This is why driving is still hellish outside, but near Boston, because there are enough of us asshole Boston drivers out for a spin in the suburbs that we bring the dysfunction of the city with us.

This is why I plan to move back to Colorado posthaste following my putative graduation in a few years.

350 MPH AND 28 MPG - HA

[ebvwfbw]

Yea, I'll park it next to my car that gets 200 MPG and can run on water too.

Investment

[Wiarumas]

You guys are thinking about this totally wrong. Of course its a pretty bad idea but the real question is how much are your grandchildren going to sell that thing for to the musuem in 100 years? Its more of an investment in my opinion than a practical purchase. Or you can consistantly blow people's minds at car shows for the next 30 years or so. Maybe they will have flying cars in the future, but owning one of the first commercially released would be a collectors item. I hope nobody takes my post too seriously haha but I do think its somewhat of a valid viewpoint.