Last Sky Commuter For Sale On eBay

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.

Comments

I can remember...

[Bin_jammin]

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...

Re:I can remember...

[Mantaar]

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?

Re:I can remember...

[Hognoxious]

what happens when you run out of gas

There are at least two options, the better of which is probably gliding.

Re:I can remember...

[QuantumG]

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.

Re:I can remember...

[icebrain]

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.

Re:I can remember...

[owlnation]

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.

Re:I can remember...

[ishmaelflood]

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.

I can't find the VIN number...

[ForestGrump]

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?

Re:I can't find the VIN number...

[iamdrscience]

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

Belongs in a museum

[user24]

I really think this belongs in a museum.

A-- WILL NOT BUY AGAIN

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:A-- WILL NOT BUY AGAIN

[jamesh]

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

d'uh

[habbi]

someone please edit the tag, it should read !transportation

Re:Who would want this?

[wish bot]

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.

Thank you Indiana Jones

[QuantumG]

we'll take it under advisement.

Re:On Ebay...

[secretwhistle]

Yet another item from the bitter Jetson divorce.

Yeah right, your an idiot

[SmallFurryCreature]

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.

Re:Yeah right, your an idiot

[JasterBobaMereel]

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?)

Interesting configuration.

[jcr]

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

Obligatory Airplane Quotation...

[Chordonblue]

Sounds like:

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

Owner builds aircraft mockups.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Who would want this?

[Professor_UNIX]

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

Have the sales brochures

[Status Quo]

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.

Idiots exists; thus, no flying cars for us

[hipsterdufus]

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.

Re:Who would want this?

[calyphus]

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 trouble with flying cars.

[Animats]

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.

We will never have flying cars in the mainstream..

[XiX36]

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....