Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Last Sky Commuter For Sale On eBay

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the still-waiting dept.

DeltaV900 writes to alert us to an auction on eBay of the last Sky Commuter concept car. About 7 hours remain in the auction and the top bid at this writing is $55,100. The seller (with some help from posters in the auction forum) makes clear that the thing won't actually fly, and in fact never did. Other Sky Commuters may have hovered. This one traveled around to air shows and trade fairs.

123 of 189 comments (clear)

  1. Poor Sky Captain by i_liek_turtles · · Score: 1

    He had to commute in this thing.

    1. Re:Poor Sky Captain by Hurricane+Floyd · · Score: 1

      At $131,700 some chick who usually buys and sells shampoo and hair care products seems like an unlikely buyer. This hints of the $11 Million General Lee car a little while back, person claimed a hacked account and tried to hide under a name change.

  2. Who would want this? by rastoboy29 · · Score: 1

    There's a lot of esoterica in my closets, to be sure--but who would want a failure like this?  It'd be like driving a nail into your palm every time you saw it, because you would really, really like a real flying car.

    --
    expandfairuse.org
    1. Re:Who would want this? by wish+bot · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Well, a museum would probably like it, and then every dreamer could go and gawk at it (or in your case - opt for crucifixion - ouch!).


      I find it really strange that the seller didn't start by contacting various institutions rather than putting it on ebay. There's something quite fishy about his descriptions - he first tries to suggest that it does actually fly, then tries to say "well, it will hover", and then adds another correction saying HE installed some electric motors and the thing will not generate any lift what-so-ever. He also admits to messing with other parts of the machine (like he was trying to restore it, but doesn't give any real details as to what qualities he was trying to restore to/against).

      I know this will sound really harsh - but judging by the guys atrocious writing, the car is better of with ANYBODY else as he's a complete nut.

      --
      lemonade was a popular drink and it still is
    2. Re:Who would want this? by Professor_UNIX · · Score: 2, Funny

      Probably the same type of person that changes his fonts in a web forum post.

    3. Re:Who would want this? by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      You are not in the world of exotic and strange cars, this kind of behavior is common. Actually I'm betting the guy is pissed he is only getting the low bids and was expecting a million or more from it. These guys thing they are sitting on a goldmine when in reality they are sitting on a nicely polished turd. Most of these "kitcars" or "custom things" are actually very poorly built or delicate, and if not maintained carefully and kept indoors they end up basket cases.

      all y ou need to do is look at the custom cars on ebay. Many of the kits are utter crap (door hinges used for hood hinge) or fantastic but delicate, all have damage.

      Guys that buy wierd crap like that tend to be wierd themselves (yes I am wierd), nobody in their right mind would ever think that thing could ever be made to fly safely, it's a concept car/prototype.

      Many guys buy this stuff with pie-in-the-sky dreams and end up selling them 10 years later at a loss.

      It belongs in a museum, but museums wont pay what these guys want.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    4. Re:Who would want this? by Dare+nMc · · Score: 1

      , nobody in their right mind would ever think that thing could ever be made to fly safely

      yeah, that realization killed my interest. If I owned this that would be my one goal, go higher than it has ever gone. Since I am not ready to die yet, best not get close to it.

      It does matter what you consider flying. If this was refined enough to fly over party cove at the local lake 6' off the ground, it would literly blow the tops off the gals. :)
    5. Re:Who would want this? by calyphus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      these "kitcars" or "custom things" are actually very poorly built or delicate

      This isn't a kit, or your average startup concept project. This is a Boeing working prototype. It's much different from a simple kit or customized project.

      However, it's interesting that Boeing's Museum of Flight has another mfr's prop driven commuter carplane in it's collection rather than this.

      --


      The potato it is uninformed.
    6. Re:Who would want this? by CopaceticOpus · · Score: 1

      We are robots, you insensitive clod!

    7. Re:Who would want this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      No, it is not a "Boeing working prototype". It is a non-working display model built by Flight Innovations Inc. The only Boeing connection is that Flight Innovations' President, Fred Barker, was an *ex* Boeing employee. This project has no more credibility than Moller's Skycar, and if anything had significantly less chance of success than the Skycar's "extremely slim to none". The Boeing name is only being bandied about to try and lend an air of authenticity to what is frankly a completely useless item to anybody except a museum or a private collector.

    8. Re:Who would want this? by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      I don't know, but I wish someone would slashdot my auctions. I have an old Cisco ISDN router to sell... Think I can get 10k?

  3. I can remember... by Bin_jammin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    way back to junior high school when he was hawking these things, then every year or three they'd pop up again, "the wave of the future" blah, blah, blah... I had a roommate that was gonzo over them when he first heard of the concept about 4 years ago. "Oh man, it's going to be so cool, you'll be able to fly to work." etc... He never quite got the reasoning of all the skeptics of the idea, like what happens when you run out of gas or have an accident in the air? Maybe we can finally put these disasters-in-the-making to rest, until the technology is available to make them something more than a stupid sci-fi pipe dream...

    1. Re:I can remember... by Mantaar · · Score: 4, Informative

      I totally agree with you. Pilots have to be 100% sober, have no criminal records, good sight (without the use of glasses), and pass a billion other tests. Flying around in mid-air is not quite like driving on the road. You have to keep track of wind, other flying vehicles, obstacles - and you have virtually no guidance (like roads). And when you make a mistake, you loose hard. Not only you, in fact, but everyone around you, too.

      Flying vehicles are too much of a risk to let them be guided by humans - you have to have some kind of computer controlled system that will mostly operate this thing for you while also keeping track of other vehicles.

      There are ideas to bring this kind of design to the road, but they've not matured yet. When we're able to control conventional traffic fully via computer systems, we may start thinking of inventing something flyable. I imagine that, just like with the transition from horses to cars, those flying cars would initially be using conventional roads (perhaps adding another layer on top of them - so we could stack highways instead of ruining the landscape with 6 or 8 lanes of asphalt) and only later have some special 'air-roads' for themselves, when the idea becomes more dominant.

      I don't think I'll ever be driving such a thing, but perhaps my kids?

      --
      I'm an infovore...
    2. Re:I can remember... by Hognoxious · · Score: 2, Funny

      what happens when you run out of gas
      There are at least two options, the better of which is probably gliding.
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    3. Re:I can remember... by QuantumG · · Score: 3, Funny

      The other option is the one that I practice with my current ground car.. I keep my eye on the fuel gauge and fill up when it gets low.

      Seriously, can't we assume just a *little* bit of intelligence on behalf of the driver? Oh, wait, we're talking about Americans aren't we.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    4. Re:I can remember... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the link. I love the bit about the engineers van running out of fuel. My dad is a glider pilot and has long insisted that this makes him a better powered plane pilot as well.

      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au
    5. Re:I can remember... by jamesh · · Score: 1

      My last car (Holden Commodore ~2002 model) had a problem where the fuel level sender unit would fail in such a way that you'd be out of fuel when the gauge said 1/4 full. Obviously you'd learn to take that into account. The second time.

      There is a reason that aircraft are subject to slightly stricter rules than ground based vehicles.

    6. Re:I can remember... by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Yeah, in Australia, such a vehicle would be considered unroadworthy.. seeing as most no-one drives Holdens except Australians, I gotta ask, where'd you get your bodgy roadworthy from? :)

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    7. Re:I can remember... by Provocateur · · Score: 1

      For some strange reason, in most cases the intelligence you're referring to seems to be situated behind the driver, hence the term 'back seat driver'.

      --
      WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
    8. Re:I can remember... by icebrain · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, we know you've never actually flown an airplane before, because you wouldn't be making inane statements like this. Those restrictions aren't there because we're a bunch of snobs trying to hog all the fun; they have them because it's very easy to fuck up flying a plane, and if you do fuck up the consequences are a lot more severe than they would be in a car. Ground controllers don't fly the aircraft; in essence, their job is to make sure planes don't hit each other, which is actually a much bigger challenge than you would think. Of course, you wouldn't know that.

      Autopilots aren't there to replace the meatware... you find them on larger transport aircraft to take the load off the pilots so they can concentrate on the other stuff, like navigating around storms, dealing with clearances, or working the systems (especially in an emergency), without having to waste some brainpower on "keep the wings level". And all these automated systems you seem to get off to fail a lot more often than you would think. Knowing how to deal with emergencies, and being able to do it, are why airline pilots get paid what they do. Take a look sometime at crash statistics for the military's unmanned aircraft... simle software bugs or communications glitches have caused many crashes. They wouldn't have happened had there been a person on board to override the systems. I realize that pilots can cause accidents too, but they have one advantage an autopilot doesn't: common sense. The autopilot will happily drive you into the heart of a severe storm, or follow a spurious command to lock all your control surfaces at maximum deflection.

      Finally, a lot of airplanes don't have autopilots at all. The vast majority of light private aircraft don't; most of those that do don't have anything more complicated than a simple altitude and heading hold. And even in airliners, takeoffs are always flown manually; and unless restricted by weather or airspace, landings and most flight under 10,000 ft is as well. Crews generally only do autolands when they absolutely have to, and even then they keep very close watch in case something goes wrong.

      Tell you what: you go ahead and get on a fully automated airplane. I'll stick with human pilots, myself.

      --
      The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
    9. Re:I can remember... by Billosaur · · Score: 1

      Having gone up in a small plane for a lesson as a birthday present, I can honestly say that there is absolutely nothing automatic about flying a plane, especially a small. You're talk thousand, perhaps tens-of-thousands of people flying the equivalent of small planes without any idea how they work or how to handle them in an emergency. System of the damned, indeed! I wouldn't get in a flying car if the sky was the equivalent of the New Jersey Turnpike.

      --
      GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
    10. Re:I can remember... by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      So my sibling poster mentions that your car is not roadworthy. And whether or not it is, it brings up a good point. Many people drive around in very mechanically unsound vehicles. Now just imagine if all those cars were flying. It would be insane. They'd be dropping out of the sky left right and centre.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    11. Re:I can remember... by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      It seems like a lot of trouble to go through, when you could solve 99% of the worlds traffic problem with a small sensor on the front of each vehicle to allow the vehicle to sense the movement of the car directly in front of them. This would be useful at red lights. The red light turns green, and all the cars that were stopped at the light, start to move at once. Instead of waiting 10 seconds for the one 10 cars back to start moving, they all start moving instantly, or within a second.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    12. Re:I can remember... by owlnation · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Pilots have to be 100% sober, have no criminal records, good sight (without the use of glasses), and pass a billion other tests. Flying around in mid-air is not quite like driving on the road. You have to keep track of wind, other flying vehicles, obstacles - and you have virtually no guidance (like roads). And when you make a mistake, you loose hard. Not only you, in fact, but everyone around you, too.
      You're right. But... during my entire private pilot's license test I was thinking, "why isn't this the same for car drivers?" If the conditions you stated also applied to car drivers -- and there is no reason why they don't -- think how much safer roads would be.
    13. Re:I can remember... by ishmaelflood · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oddly enough that's what they do in the UK. The lights go green, everyone who can see the traffic light hits the loud pedal, and at least starts to roll. I was slightly astonished to find that Australian drivers don't do this. There again they are so unskillful that they'd probably crash into each other. On the other hand Australians d at least treat the amber light with the contempt it deserves. ObStarman.

    14. Re:I can remember... by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      There would still be a delay because the safe distance at 30mph is totally different to the safe distance when stopped. Within a second is completely unrealistic. All it would stop is the idiot who takes 30 seconds to realize that the car in front has gone... but you can get pretty close to optimal already if the queue is seasoned drivers (eg. evenings after work, when the drive once a week crowd aren't usually out).

      Such systems as you describe are in commercial deployment btw. - it's called adaptive cruise control - but they mostly handle moving traffic.

    15. Re:I can remember... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      good sight (without the use of glasses),

      really? then how do I have a pilots license? I need glasses I am nearsighted so without them I might as well be flying in zero visibility.

      Lots of people that need glasses to see have their pilots license, I suggest you update your information.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    16. Re:I can remember... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Oddly enough that's what they do in the UK. The lights go green, everyone who can see the traffic light hits the loud pedal
      It's probably because of the sequencing; it goes from red to red-and-yellow-together for around 1 to 2 seconds before turning green. It's enough time for most competent drivers to get in gear and drop the handbrake.

      In Belgium for instance it doesn't work like that, so you basically have to hold it on the clutch and footbrake unless you want some dick to run into you (or at least, hoot like a twat) 15 milliseconds after it changes.
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    17. Re:I can remember... by paiute · · Score: 1

      On the subject of pilots keeping their cool under stress, I came across this blog entry

      http://urbanparamedic.blogspot.com/search?q=helipad/

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    18. Re:I can remember... by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      That's a great idea, but since pilots won't work for bus driver money, that means the rest of us will have to cycle to work. Sure, you get a really quick commute to the airport, but you'll lose that time in cleaning the blood, mangled spokes and scraps of spandex off of your car.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    19. Re:I can remember... by SirGarlon · · Score: 1

      I don't think I'll ever be driving such a thing, but perhaps my kids?

      There is a large energy cost just to getting a car/plane airborne. Given that crude oil just hit $100 a barrel for the first time, I doubt the benefits of flying cars will ever justify the costs -- especially when one considers air pollution/greenhouse gas emissions.

      Maybe we'll see them for some special applications, like ambulances, where money is no object; but having your own flying car will probably remain a pipe dream due to the laws of thermodynamics.

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    20. Re:I can remember... by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      That's why they need to start putting real bumpers back on cars. Ones that can actually take a little bump.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    21. Re:I can remember... by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      "I totally agree with you. Pilots have to be 100% sober, have no criminal records, good sight (without the use of glasses), and pass a billion other tests."
      Not exactly. You can wear glasses and get your pilot's license. Also you don't have to pass a billion other tests. Learning to fly isn't all that hard. It is expensive but not all that hard. The FAA has even started to make it cheaper and easier with the new sport pilot license. You can only fly light two place aircraft in good weather but the planes cost about as much as a nice boat or a very nice car.
      The big problem with learning to fly is the price of gas. AV gas still has lead so it is a lot more expensive than auto-gas. I have seen it is high as five or six dollars a gallon here. Some planes can now use autogas and some are starting to use Jet-A which is a lot cheaper.
      Learning to fly is more involved than learning to drive a car but it doesn't take super human effort.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    22. Re:I can remember... by netsharc · · Score: 1

      Just like in motor racing (at least those without rolling starts, e.g. Formula One): the lights go green and all the cars accelerate as one... I agree it would be a lot more efficient, but then the grandpa in the car in front of you might not be an F1-driver. If he waits just a bit too long you'll run into him.. Maybe you can just leave more distance to the car in front when stopping. But then again if you notice the car in front of you isn't moving, you brake, and a moment later the car behind you notices you braked, and a moment later the car behind him crashes into him because the driver noticed him braking a tick too late...

      --
      What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
    23. Re:I can remember... by Dan+East · · Score: 1

      Obviously you've never watched Bugs Bunny cartoons. When you run out of gas you either come to a complete stop, or you simply use the air brakes.

      Dan East

      --
      Better known as 318230.
    24. Re:I can remember... by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

      Ummm, if I remember right, it's 20/20 vision corrected. The military requires 20/20 uncorrected.

          The rest I agree with. :)

          I've flown a little bit. It's a lot of fun, but even with a few planes in the air, I've seen some almost incidents. Like, what happens when one plane is landing (approach at approx 65 knots), and another plane taxis onto the runway for takeoff... Oh ya, everyone sh1ts themselves.

          Before they could make this work, the FAA would have to adopt a very complex ATC scheme. Right now, they're managing just a few airways, because there aren't that many aircraft in controlled airspace. Uncontrolled airspace isn't too bad, because there aren't that many planes up at a time, and they are all playing nice (generally). Most of the incidents I've heard about are self induced. Like, landing on something that isn't a runway, overrunning runways, coming in a bit improperly and bending a prop, or forgetting to lower the gear.

          That air car does look dangerous in the event of an engine failure or loss of fuel. I hope they'd have emergency parachutes (for the whole "car"), and that ATC would have a way to manage traffic around it. For some reason, I could see that being a very bad thing on a 8 lane, 8 layer road in rush hour traffic. But really, if a car breaks down in the center lane of an interstate in a metro area, that makes a mess too.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    25. Re:I can remember... by icebrain · · Score: 1

      The big problem with learning to fly is the price of gas. AV gas still has lead so it is a lot more expensive than auto-gas. I think it has more to do with there only being one refinery that makes avgas, and the demand a tiny fraction of "mogas".
      --
      The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
    26. Re:I can remember... by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      I think it has more to do with there only being one refinery that makes avgas, and the demand a tiny fraction of "mogas".


      Yup.

      The demand is tiny - to service ptactically all Avgas needs for North America and then some, ONE refinery is needed for just one or two days per year to make the year's worth of avgas demand. Despite how much is flown, it's just a drop in the bucket compared to mogas. In fact, the refinery does exactly that - switch production for a day or two to avgas, then switch back, rather than make it on demand. Most of the other costs are in storing the volatile gas.
    27. Re:I can remember... by 192939495969798999 · · Score: 1

      Another way to look at why flying cars are a bad idea: 50,000+ people per year die crashing non-flying cars. Imagine what that number would be like with flying cars!

      --
      stuff |
    28. Re:I can remember... by ashitaka · · Score: 1

      The pilot of Air Canada flight 143 aka the "Gimli Glider" would agree with you on that.

      --
      If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
    29. Re:I can remember... by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      In the U.S. it's not a matter of being forewarned the light is about to change, because that still only works when the driver is paying attention. The problem is the lattes, cellphones, stereos, in dash DVD players, magazines, newspapers, putting on makeup, eating, drinking, conversing, and just general incompetence of drivers.

      Where I live traffic is really bad, one of the worst places in the U.S., and yet I think traffic could be at least 33%, if not 50% better if drivers would just pay attention and stop acting like such selfish assholes.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    30. Re:I can remember... by TurboStar · · Score: 1

      Pilots have to be 100% sober, have no criminal records, good sight (without the use of glasses), and pass a billion other tests.
      All you need for a pilot's license is a physical to ensure you have no health issues that would cause you to lose control of the vehicle. Things like heart problems and epilepsy would be a problem. And as long as your vision is correctable, it's basically the same rules as for driving a car. Only if you want to fly for an airline or the military are there additional rules and drug tests and stuff like that. At least, this was the case 10 years ago, 9/11 may have f'd this up.
    31. Re:I can remember... by torkus · · Score: 1

      Yes but many many more people DON'T die when getting into a non-flying car accidents.

      Immagine if the penalty for running up a curb while putting on your makeup was death? Wow ... the wonders we'd do for the gene pool! :) Oh, and sorry to the guy in the other flying car who served as the 'flying curb'. But hey, lrn2dodge, k?

      Seriously - just make all flying cars (when we have them, sic) automatic control in any sort of populated area. Automatic controll is far easier when you eliminate the unknowns of other stupid drivers. You can predict what wind will do in the 90% case, the 99% case, the 99.9999...and so on. Figuing out what that caddy up the road will do...depending of someone's 104 year old grandmother, a drunk, a 16 year old joyriding, or a normal driver will do...is far more difficult. Take that out of the equation.

      But hey, we "need pilots" for commercial airlines. Nevermind the autopilot they have and use for the 90% case.

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
    32. Re:I can remember... by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      You know you can solo a plane with only 20 hours of flight time, correct? That's less time then most teenagers have to log with their parents driving before they get a driver's license.

    33. Re:I can remember... by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Sorry I should have been a lot more clear. The lead isn't that expensive.
      The real cost is in the transportation of it. The restrictions on lead are so strong that AV gas can no longer be shipped using pipelines. transporting the stuff costs a lot. Add in the small amount being made each year and you have can see the problems.
      Current autogas can work but it has a lot of issues. A lot of it is getting alcohol added into it as well as other additives that may cause problems in an airplane.
      AV gas is being used less and less for anything but light aircraft. I am betting that at some point light aircraft will have to move to a combination of motorgas and diesels burning JET-A.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    34. Re:I can remember... by pcgabe · · Score: 1

      I can remember... way back to junior high school when he was hawking these things, then every year or three they'd pop up again, "the wave of the future" blah, blah, blah...
      I believe you are confusing this with the Moller Skycar.
      --
      Don't put advice in your sig.
    35. Re:I can remember... by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

      Seriously, can't we assume just a *little* bit of intelligence on behalf of the driver? Oh, wait, we're talking about humans aren't we.

      Fixed that for ya.

    36. Re:I can remember... by The_Laughing_God · · Score: 1
      In the first place, I'd like to clarify. Pilots do not need perfect vision, I've been a pilot for over 25 years, and my uncorrected vision hasn't qualified me to *drive a car* without glasses in all that time. My reliance on glasses for mild myopia and astigmatism wasn't a problem.

      Secondly, you *can* get a pilots license for the same qualifications as a driver's license. Not a Private Pilot's license but a Sport Pilot license. In fact, presenting a valid state driver's license plus a signed statement that you don't have certain medical conditions is all you need to qualify initially. No physical is presumptively required.

      I'm not sure about all the details of the requirements for a Light sport Aircraft, but the plane in question would meet all the ones I can think of: at 400lb, it meets the weight limit (1320lbs=600 kg), it has fixed landing gear; it can hover so it has a maximum stall speed of under 45 knots (51mph); 1-2 person occupancy; reciprocating engine, and it appears to have fixed "propellers" albeit in an unconventional configuration. Since this is a new class I'm sure the Sky Commuter wasn't registered as a LSA (the auction made that clear as well), but it may be registerable in that class.

    37. Re:I can remember... by jamesh · · Score: 1

      Yeah, in Australia, such a vehicle would be considered unroadworthy

      That's just the point. It might be unroadworthy _after_ it developed the fault. But if it developed the fault and the first time it was noticed (eg you ran out of fuel) was 'crossing' (eg flying over) a busy highway, then you can point your finger and say 'unroadworthy' all you like, it won't make any difference.

      As it happened, the fault was fixed under warranty (it was apparently a common problem of Commodores of that era)
    38. Re:I can remember... by Bitsy+Boffin · · Score: 1

      That's a great idea, but since pilots won't work for bus driver money
      Havn't met many pilots, have you? Try asking an instructor at your local airport just how much (s)he makes.
      --
      NZ Electronics Enthusiasts: Check out my Trade Me Listings
    39. Re:I can remember... by BBandCMKRNL · · Score: 1

      You know you can solo a plane with only 20 hours of flight time, correct? You know that when you solo, you are restricted to the equivalent of driving around the neighborhood, correct?

      That's less time then most teenagers have to log with their parents driving before they get a driver's license. Your comparison is invalid. Once a student pilot has soloed, there is additional training required with the instructor before the student can take the flying portion of the private pilot exam.

      Also, parents are not certified by anyone as to their ability to teach someone how to drive, the the training program is not standardized, and the parents don't lose their jobs if too many of their children fail their driving test.
      --
      Without the 2nd Amendment, the others are just suggestions.
  4. Modern personal-flying-car equivalents by compumike · · Score: 1

    This is a neat concept car. Out of everything I've heard about, the most likely to actually make it to the market is the Terrafugia Transition, which is aimed at people who have both drivers' and pilots' licenses. Not VTOL, but more realistic too.

    --
    Educational microcontroller kits for the digital generation.

  5. I can't find the VIN number... by ForestGrump · · Score: 4, Funny

    I looked over the fleabay posting and can't find the VIN for the car. If someone found it could you PLEASE reply to this so I can do a quick carfax report?

    Thanks
    Grump

    PS Does anyone have a carfax account to run the check for me?

    --
    Is it true that more people vote for the winner of American Idol, than vote for the president? -Ali G.
    1. Re:I can't find the VIN number... by iamdrscience · · Score: 4, Funny

      Why bother? He's clearly selling it as a parts car for people trying to repair their regular flying car.

  6. For Auction != For Sale by Traf-O-Data-Hater · · Score: 1

    If it were for sale there would be a 'Buy It Now' option. There is a difference. Or is it that no-one cares anymore?

    1. Re:For Auction != For Sale by houghi · · Score: 1

      For Auction is For Sale. For Sale is not For Auction.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    2. Re:For Auction != For Sale by IBBoard · · Score: 1

      Or, to put it mathematically (without the aid of mathematical symbols or a safety net), auctions are a subset of sales where the price is determined by the highest bidder as opposed to determined before advertising, but sales are not a subset of auctions.

    3. Re:For Auction != For Sale by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      I'm not too up-to-date on my set theory, but are there any weird mathematical instances where A is a subset of B, and B is a subset of A? It seems like it would be impossible, unless A and B are equal sets (and therefore not subsets).

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    4. Re:For Auction != For Sale by IBBoard · · Score: 1

      unless A and B are equal sets (and therefore not subsets)

      Well, in that case they are subsets but they're "complete subsets" (I think that was the term) i.e. a subset that contains all of the superset.
  7. Belongs in a museum by user24 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I really think this belongs in a museum.

    1. Re:Belongs in a museum by pppppppman · · Score: 1

      No Dr. user24, you do!

  8. A-- WILL NOT BUY AGAIN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Will not buy again! Flying car did not fly as advertised! A--!

    1. Re:A-- WILL NOT BUY AGAIN by jamesh · · Score: 4, Funny

      No... an A-- is what you give when the package you receive from eBay only contains a bobcat.

    2. Re:A-- WILL NOT BUY AGAIN by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 1

      Ha, a flying car is a pretty lame thing to buy on eBay, there are waaay cooler thing you can get. I got a time machine arriving this week, I hope it works better than the teleporter I bought last week tho.

      --
      What if Tetris was invented by Nazis?
    3. Re:A-- WILL NOT BUY AGAIN by sticks_us · · Score: 1

      Dude, I hate to say this but I think you've been scammed.

      This flying car thing is another one just like it. If you read between the lines, what they really want to send you is the BOX THE FLYING CAR CAME IN, not the car itself.

      --
      "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it." -- Donald Knuth
    4. Re:A-- WILL NOT BUY AGAIN by MikeRR · · Score: 1

      Ha, a flying car is a pretty lame thing to buy on eBay, there are waaay cooler thing you can get.

        I got a time machine arriving this week A+++ Arrived even before I bought it ++++
    5. Re:A-- WILL NOT BUY AGAIN by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      It landed on my grandfather, you insenitive clod! Now I dont ex

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  9. d'uh by habbi · · Score: 3, Funny

    someone please edit the tag, it should read !transportation

  10. Thank you Indiana Jones by QuantumG · · Score: 3, Funny

    we'll take it under advisement.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
  11. Finally an answer by 12WTF$ · · Score: 1

    to the persistent whinge "where's my flying car?"

    Answer: On eBay

    --
    Cryonics - Keep cool and carry on.
  12. Re:On Ebay... by secretwhistle · · Score: 3, Funny

    Yet another item from the bitter Jetson divorce.

  13. Analogy Search by hyades1 · · Score: 1

    Duke Nukem Forever is to Vapourware as Skycar is to......

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    1. Re:Analogy Search by Grimbleton · · Score: 1

      Potential calamity.

    2. Re:Analogy Search by Shadowhawk · · Score: 1

      Duke Nukem Forever is to Vapourware as Skycar is to...
      crashware!
      --
      My mind works like lightning. One brilliant flash and it is gone.
  14. Re: No, that is Moller by scsirob · · Score: 1

    You are confusing this with the Moller SkyCrap. This was closer to the real deal 18 years ago then Moller will ever be.

    --
    To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
  15. Re:I don't see $55,100 by luke2063 · · Score: 1

    The bids shown as current bid are a small amount above the previous bid - so $55,100 would be m***o( 2729) US $55,500.00 Jan-13-08 17:31:08 PST bid above l***u( 1299) US $55,000.00 Jan-13-08 16:43:22 PST

  16. Re:As a pilot... by QuantumG · · Score: 1

    As a pilot, you would say that.

    If you were an ex-pilot, then we'd get a different story.. as I do from most ex-pilots I know.. and some active pilots I know who are mature enough to know how little important they are in the normal operation of the aircraft.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
  17. Yeah right, your an idiot by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Watch those same shows and see the ones where the pilots still managed to land the aircraft, like the one over Iraq that got shot at, or the several cases of where an airliner lost all engine power etc etc. Plenty of cases where real airmanship and seat of the pants flying were called for that could not be delivered by an auto-pilot or a button pusher.

    Only a complete and utter moron looks at a routine job when everything is normal and judges how difficult a job is based on that. The entire point of using real humans with serious training as pilots is NOT for when everything is normal but for when the shit hits the fan and all of sudden an airline pilot you think is just a button pusher is in control of a giant glider.

    An autopilot can take off, cruise and land, but it can't deal with an emergency and as was shown during an airshow in europe autopilots will happily try to land an airliner in a forest.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Yeah right, your an idiot by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      That's just cause no-one has bothered to make an autopilot system that can.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    2. Re:Yeah right, your an idiot by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 2, Informative

      The "Autopilot" that landed in a forest was not an autopilot at all, it was the fly-by-wire computer system that overrulled the pilot by decending when he was trying to pull up....

      The reason we have pilots in aircraft is for the emergencies most commercial flights the autopilot flies the plane for most of the journey and can usually take off and land as well if required, but the pilots are needed to cope with situations the autopilot was not designed for (but this does not mean they can't be designed for this?)

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    3. Re:Yeah right, your an idiot by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      The "Autopilot" that landed in a forest was not an autopilot at all, it was the fly-by-wire computer system that overrulled the pilot by decending when he was trying to pull up....
      Not even that - the Habsheim A320 crash was caused primarily by pilot error, as he both changed his plan of action at the last minute, reduced height to below that of the surrounding obstacles, reduced power below that he would require so he maintained a descent angle, and basically left it too late to do anything about it before he hit the trees. There has never been any evidence to show that the A320s systems caused the accident, despite many conspiracy theories surrounding the case.
    4. Re:Yeah right, your an idiot by Grismar · · Score: 1

      And since we can all agree to both the argument against letting Joe Average fly a vehicle and the argument about an autopilot being unable to handle many emergencies, we can just put the whole flying car concept to bed.

      It's not going to happen anytime soon, at least not until we've developed sufficiently intelligent technology that we would actually entrust with our lives. Would you get into a 747 that's being flown by wire, 100%?

      It reminds me of a popular joke that used to be told to computer science students by one of my favorite teachers: 3 IT guys get into an airplane. In their row, an important looking guy, who turns out to own the airline strikes up a conversation. "Boy, I'm really excited about this flight, we just put a new autopilot system in place." One of the guys starts to sweat profusely, makes up an excuse and gets out of the plane. "In fact, aren't you guys part of the company that developed it for us?" Now the second guy start looking really uncomfortable and mumbles something about leaving his workstation logged in, while getting off the plane. "Hey, why did both of your friends leave, yet you are still here?" The final guy responds: "I'm fairly certain we won't even get off the ground."

    5. Re:Yeah right, your an idiot by houghi · · Score: 1

      Watch those same shows and see the ones where the pilots still managed to land the aircraft, like the one over Iraq that got shot at, or the several cases of where an airliner lost all engine power etc etc.

      The one that got shot down over Iraq could have landed much easier if it had a computer system that helped them to fly without hydrolics.

      This does NOT mean I think flying cars are a good idea. Holding something in the air requires more fuel then not doing so and alone for that it is a bad idea.

      Another reason is that in a trafic jam, you can get very close to each other. Try doing that while in the air in 3 dimensions.
      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    6. Re:Yeah right, your an idiot by Silverstrike · · Score: 1

      Right, and no one will ever need more than 640 kb of RAM.

      Come on, look around, where are you? You're expected to have a better vision of technology here.

      One day, there will be a machine that can fly as well, and better than, humans. Hell, the Predator UAV's already fly in bad weather.

      Its a question of WHEN not IF.

    7. Re:Yeah right, your an idiot by hey! · · Score: 1

      Seems to me it's a matter of whether a system's design requirements involves safe landing under bizarre conditions like missing control surfaces. Autopilots aren't designed to do that because their job is to save the pilots for when you need them most.

      What an expert does in a crisis is draw upon his experience and training. Something that may be, at this date at least, an uniquely human ability is synthesizing a patchwork of skills and experience into something that will do in a crisis never experienced before. However, it is possible to examine past crises and characterize the correct actions in a large number of them. A robotic system could then be designed and tested under precisely those conditions, which you cannot put even a test pilot.

      The truth is that those splendid pilots who landed aircraft that were shot into flying scrap did so by manipulating a relatively small number of parameters like engine power (if they had it) and control surfaces (such as they had). There is no reason a computer can't do it too.

      Of course any computer system will fail in certain situations where a human being might succeed. But it is also true that any human being might fail in circumstances where some other one might succeed.

      It's not the same as heroic piloting. A few years ago I saw a report on somebody whom, for want of a better word, was a computational anatomist. He had modeled Pavarotti's vocal apparatus, and the model could sing in a recognizably Pavarotti way (although it was also recognizably robotic). He put the program through Nessum Dorma from Turandot, one of Pavarotti's great signature pieces. It ends with a B4 followed by a G4. G4 is the top of a normal tenor's range and B4, one third above that, is just one half note below the famously difficult "high C". The tiny increment from B4 to C5 means that the great tenors don't just hit B4 on this piece, they milk it. The program hits B4, and sustains it, not for three seconds, but twenty.

      So, while eventually I'd expect robotic voices to be as good or better than human ones, they'll never replace people. The drama of opera isn't in the story, it's in whether the singer's voice will crack when pushed to its limit, and there's always a chance that even a very good tenor won't make it. A requirement for the opera singer is that he might fail. The same can't be said for automatic pilots.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    8. Re:Yeah right, your an idiot by Paul+Jakma · · Score: 1

      The "Autopilot" that landed in a forest was not an autopilot at all, it was the fly-by-wire computer system that overrulled the pilot by decending when he was trying to pull up....

      This is a myth.

      Read the accident reports - it was pilot error. IIRC he hadn't prepared properly and so was unaware of the high trees at the airpor. He miscalibrated his barometric altimeter and then ignored his radio-altimeter (which is far more accurate at low altitude) thus flying significantly lower over the runway than he had intended. Finally, he applied power way too late to get the plane above the trees at the end of the runway, instead (likely) causing a compressor stall - an operational hazard of jet engines he would have been well-trained in - which finally doomed him to fly him into the trees

      The muppet then tried to blame the aircraft, claiming it ignored his inputs - hence the myth. Except there's no evidence for that all, all the evidence points to pilot error (and perhaps some measure of fault at Air France with regard to flight-planning).

      Stop repeating that bogus myth.

      --
      I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
    9. Re:Yeah right, your an idiot by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 1

      Sorry, like most urban myths, it gets more publicity than the real events, and so I was unaware of what really happened

      It's the usual

      Day after crash : "Front Page: Plane Crashes - Pilot blames systems failure"

      Three weeks later : "Page 23 small article - it was really pilot error"

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
  18. Interesting configuration. by jcr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    With modern computer control, it should be possible to stabilize a three-fan system like that. What I would wonder though, is how efficient it could be in forward flight, having very little in the way of effective wing area.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    1. Re:Interesting configuration. by cmat · · Score: 1

      One I noted when I looked at the 3-fan design, is that if you have problems with any of th fans, you're in alot of trouble as there is no redundancy (especially for the front fan, but I'd bet it would be extremely unlikely that loss of a rear fan could be compensated for by the other rear fan). Very bad failure mode...

      --
      -- Humans, because the hardware IS the software.
    2. Re:Interesting configuration. by Hurricane+Floyd · · Score: 1

      Horrendously inefficient, there would be no lift at all other than the fans. Why not build the same thing with ducted fans? I think modern electric motor and computer technology could do a better job, but still not quite a "Jetson car" like everybody wants.

    3. Re:Interesting configuration. by jcr · · Score: 1

      no lift at all other than the fans.

      No, there would be some lift from the body, as long as the path for airflow over the top is longer than the path underneath. The question is how much, and what the effective wing loading would be.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    4. Re:Interesting configuration. by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      I would say a ballistic parachute is the only answer.
      I have been an EAA member since I was 12 and that was a long time ago. When people ask me about this or the Skycar I tell them the same thing.
      Until I see that it flew as Oshkosh it isn't real.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  19. Obligatory Airplane Quotation... by Chordonblue · · Score: 2, Funny

    Sounds like:

    "He's a menace to himself and everything else in the air... Yes, birds too."

    --
    "...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
  20. Owner builds aircraft mockups. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    The guy who's selling it, Steven Stull, makes aircraft mock ups. See the pages here and here for a full size model of the Airwolf he build for a museum.

  21. Re:As a pilot... by QuantumG · · Score: 1

    Uh huh. And the morse test had nothing to do with trying to keep Ham exclusive. Seriously, for recreational flying there is absolutely no reason to require pilots to have 20-20 vision or any of the other crap. How could I possibly know? Because I know three pilots who have told me that they didn't have 20-20 vision the day they went for their exams, they just faked it. I've met a half dozen pilots who are colour blind and faked their way through the test.

    As you might have guessed, I don't think I know something about flying because I know how to code, I think I know something about flying (and air traffic control) because I know people in the industry and have an interest in it myself. Your assumption that I'm some geek who knows nothing is typical of pilot arrogance.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
  22. Can't wait. by fastest+fascist · · Score: 1

    I can't wait to see widespread adoption of flying commuter vehicles. Then we'll get to see public buildings protected from suicide bombers not just by concrete walls or metal fences, but giant cages covering them completely. Or maybe they'll just install flak cannons.

  23. Copyrights included? by PhilHibbs · · Score: 1
    From the ebay listing:

    This Sky Commuter and all it's R&D and any copyrights go with this aircraft.

    I doubt that that is true. Surely Boeing own the "copyrights" to their research, and I wouldn't expect to see that kind of thing go on ebay.
    1. Re:Copyrights included? by thorkyl · · Score: 1

      "and any copyrights"

      would that be any that he has rights too?

      --
      -- I am the NRA, enough said...
  24. Re:I don't see $55,100 by PhilHibbs · · Score: 1

    When it was 55,000 I could have bid 55,100 and been the highest bidder.
    Probably not. l***i might have set a maximum bid of $1,000,000 and what you see on ebay is the second-highest bid. As soon as you bid $55,100 then all you do is bump up the person who has already outbid you to a slightly higher amount.
  25. On the other hand, there _is_ a flying hovercraft by Kupfernigk · · Score: 1

    I saw it on TV quite recently. It's from a specialist hovercraft builder in, I think, Illinois who builds small one man hovercraft. He has found that by fitting small wings, he can get ground effect lift (shouldn't that be water effect lift? Oh well) and fly over a lake at an altitude of a meter or so. Over 3 meters you apparently need a pilot's licence. It looks surprisingly similar to this skycar, except that it's red. And either it works or that was the most realistic bit of CGI I have ever seen. And I want one...but I'm 100% sure my wife wouldn't let me.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
  26. Have the sales brochures by Status+Quo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I was in 7th or 8th grade at the time and my dad had a subscription to Sport Aviation. I wrote and received the technical sales information. I always wondered what happened to this product and company. I still have those CAD drawings of the ducted fans and the views of the vehicle. Too bad they couldn't get more traction.

    On the other hand, I look at the way people drive and shudder to think about any moron flying one of these things. It was an interesting concept, but I don't want my neighbor taking off first thing in the morning. I also don't want to worry about structural damage because the kids next door are playing football and manage to damage the body.

    --
    I'll never be as good as I want to be. I can only be as good as I am.
  27. Sky Captain flew a custom P-40 by objekt · · Score: 1

    Sky Captain flew a custom P-40 modified by Dexter Dearborn.

    --
    -- Boycott Shell
  28. Re:hey guess what? by Hurricane+Floyd · · Score: 1

    Anonymous racist cowards suck.

  29. Re:What about what the man said himself... by jcr · · Score: 1

    You already know, because you have been told repeatedly, that he neither wrote nor edited the statements at issue

    He's no racist, and you are a witch-hunter.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  30. Re:I don't see $55,100 by aussie_a · · Score: 1

    Well yes, it was a theoretical possibility, in an attempt to explain where the number came from.

    I'm a bit confused why some mod thinks it to be trollish.

  31. Idiots exists; thus, no flying cars for us by hipsterdufus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Have you ever seen:

    A car accident?
    A broken-down car beside the road?
    Aggressive driving?
    Drunk driving?
    Cars with the left blinker on endlessly?
    Cars with broken head/tail lights?
    Cars doing 60+ mph on the space-saver spare?

    Now, can imagine all this happening even 20 feet in the air? Disaster.

    The flying car already exists and it is called a helicopter. If you think you can fly a helicopter without weeks upon weeks of training, then go buy one and start commuting.

  32. Sold for US $131,700.00 by Robotbeat · · Score: 1

    It sold for US $131,700.00

  33. Auction Ended by Ruzty · · Score: 1

    The auction ended with the price doubling in the last 20 minutes. It sold for $131,700.00

    --
    The Master (Angelo Rossitto) in Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome, "Not shit, energy!"
  34. Air Traffic Control is an NP-hard problem by mustangdavis · · Score: 1

    I don't know how many of you have a Master's or PhD in Computer Science, but the air traffic control problem is a NP-hard problem. Basically, this means that, in high population areas where you would have thousands of cars flying in all directions, there isn't a computer system in the world that could control all of those cars. Yes, there are solutions that would allow for quite a few cars at one time (SIMD machines with multi-dimensional memory, for example), but I do not beleive that there is a solution available that could be implemented without an absolutely insane cost that would accompany it. There are just too many varialbles ... and the more cars you add, the more likely that the system will not be able to handle the load, and you will suddenly have hundreds of mid-air collisions ...

    The bottom line: Flying cars for general public use is, as someone before me stated, a "scifi pipe dream".

    Sorry folks, didn't mean to rain on your parade, but flying cars will NOT happen anytime soon.

    Having everyone flying around in cars, computer driven or not, is a frightening idea!! People today can not handle two dimensions, how can we expect them to handle three dimensions??

    For more information on NP-hard problems and the air traffic control problem, please consult google :)

    --
    HallmarkOrnaments.Com
    1. Re:Air Traffic Control is an NP-hard problem by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      Basically, this means that, in high population areas where you would have thousands of cars flying in all directions, there isn't a computer system in the world that could control all of those cars.

      There's also isn't a computer system in the world that can control the routing for all of the packets in the internet, yet somehow they get to their destination.

      Perhaps you haven't considered that there are other ways to do traffic control besides having a central authority controlling every vehicle?

      All a computerized vehicle needs to do is to pick the path for itself that moves itself closer to it's destination without moving itself towards other objects that are heading towards any part of that same path in the same timeframe.

      I can think of multiple ways of accomplishing that off the top of my head. One would be to use a common path description format and then for a vehicle to pick a path and then broadcast a time-based path reservation to the other vehicles within a radius determined by safety considerations. That path reservation would then become off-limits when those other vehicles are picking their paths. Infrequent reservation collisions would require a resolution of which vehicle needs to recompute a new path for itself, but we use simplified rules for that already, as illustrated by the phrase "right-of-way".
      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
  35. Re:As a pilot... by rbanffy · · Score: 1

    While I enjoy both "Mythbusters" and "Air Crash Investigations", I happen to agree with you on the "fucking idiot" part.

    Pilots are there to deal with stuff the autopilot can't. It's always the unexpected things that crash planes as all the expected ones have been taken care of. The jetliner pilot is there to figure out what the problem is in order to land the plane as safely as possible or die trying.

    That said, I see it's inevitable that some automated flight control mechanism will end up helping to make "flying cars" feasible someday. OTOH, major breakthroughs in materials, propulsion and manufacturing techniques will be required before we can fly to work instead of drive.

    --
    http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
  36. The trouble with flying cars. by Animats · · Score: 2, Informative

    There are two fundamental problems with flying cars. First, reciprocating engines aren't quite powerful enough, and small turbojets cost too much. Second, they're unstable. Both problems could be solved, yielding an expensive but workable flying car.

    The engine is the big problem. People have been trying to downsize jet engines for decades. Small ones can be built, but once you get below small bizjet size, they don't get much cheaper. That's why general aviation is still running on pistons. A flying car in the $2 million range is probably feasible, but the market is limited and the engineering costs are high.

    Stability is partly a control system problem and partly an actuator problem. How do you exert attitude control in hover? Adjusting the fan speed of multiple fans is too slow. Adjusting blade pitch cyclically, like a helicopter, requires cramming all the machinery of a helicopter hub into each fan hub. VTOL jet fighters have been successful, sort of. The Harrier diverts about 10% of its jet thrust to attitude jets in hover, which yields quick control, but the Harrier has plenty of jet thrust to play with. The F-35 fighter has a steerable nozzle in the tail, a lift fan in the middle, slats under the fan, pitch nozzles in the wings, roll nozzles in the nose, doors to cover all this gear, and enough computer power to manage it. Even with all that, it's a marginal VTOL craft. The USSR tried several VTOL fighter designs over the years, but none of them worked very well. The Harrier variants are the only real success to date.

    The Sky Commuter was an exercise in weight reduction; it weighs about 400 pounds. That's one approach, but it didn't work.

  37. Much like OS's by unassimilatible · · Score: 1

    It's like, how could someone sell an OS that despite billions in R&D and years of patches would never do what it was intended to? What fool would buy such a thing? I feel sorry for anyone who would invest in such a company.

    --
    Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
  38. Insurance must be a bitch by r_jensen11 · · Score: 1

    Without reading up on this, I know that this thing must be inoperable (from a practicality standpoint), but still I wonder what kind of insurance policy the owner must put on this thing. Collectables/property insurance is my guess, but imagine how much it would cost if it were insured as an auto or a plane.

    Oblig:
    I hope Boeing provided a good warrenty for it!

  39. Fake? by danhuby · · Score: 1

    I hadn't heard of the "Sky Commuter" before so I googled:
      "sky commuter" Boeing
    which returns 1,830 pages, most of which refer to the eBay auction. Other attempts to find out about this concept vehicle came to nothing.

    Is this fake?

    Also see the other post above about the seller building full size model aircraft for a living... seems a bit suspect to me.

    Dan

    1. Re:Fake? by kellyb9 · · Score: 1

      picture looks photoshopped: http://xkcd.com/331/

    2. Re:Fake? by danhuby · · Score: 1


      Yeah yeah yeah.... but really this does seem wrong. If it was really a Boeing concept it must have been under a different name, or perhaps kept a closely guarded secret.

  40. The skycar is a cool concept...... by darkhalcon · · Score: 1

    It makes absolutely no sense from an efficiency standpoint. Most of the energy is used to create enough vertical thrust to hover. Very little energy is used to propel it in a horizontal direction. With all the focus on decreasing energy consumption I don't see this happening anytime soon.

    There was another hybrid concept that used fans to generate lift until it gained enough forward velocity for the wings to generate lift. At this point you're flying a modified vertical take-off plane, and it still doesn't make any sense.

  41. We will never have flying cars in the mainstream.. by XiX36 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You would need a sophisticated autopilot guidance system with traffic detection and a lot of computer control over the flight of the aircar. You would need to discourgage/disable manual control while in flight to keep all aircar traffic flowing in a predictable way/avoid having really nasty accidents because the little old lady piloting the purple air-car forgot her glasses at the bingo parlor... You need a system that would need to be proven to be safe and reliable for a long time before it gets adopted by the masses, and until a flying car can manage to fly after: 1) while commuting home one night, you manage to hit 7 out of 12 ducks flying south for the winter 2) you forget to check the lubrication levels in the right rear turbofan, in fact you should have gotten an oil change 2 1/2 months ago... 3) since you can't afford a new one right now, your exhaust system will just have to be held up by bailing wire and duct tape, hopefully the shearing forces of the wind won't rip it off 4) Microsoft Windows-Flying Car Edition crashes... at 9,000 feet....

    --
    Insert witty sig here.
  42. Re:He just had them posted in his name for 8 years by jcr · · Score: 1

    cult-like mentality

    Fuck you, too. I did my research, I read everything I could find on this matter, and I'm satisfied. For the record, I have a thirty+ year habit of telling racists where to go and how to get there, whether they're nazis like the stormfronters or the more subtle racists who promote racial discrimination under the name of "affirmative action."

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  43. Re:He just had them posted in his name for 8 years by jcr · · Score: 1

    I was serious about the cult mentality comment. It wasn't an arbitrary insult.

    The hell it wasn't.

    Ask a Scientologist

    Oh, now you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel. Keith Henson is a friend of mine, you slimy motherfucker.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  44. Re:But by Hurricane+Floyd · · Score: 1

    At least it doesn't run Windows, or it would be crashed to bits already.

  45. Re:We will never have flying cars in the mainstrea by Hurricane+Floyd · · Score: 1

    I can see a not-too-distant future where we don't manually drive vehicles anyway, would be safer, with new technology autopiloted flying cars will most likely one day exist.