Slashdot Mirror
Flying Car by end of year
James Green writes "CNN is reporting something will surely make everyone want to duck - the SkyCar, an invention by Moller International, of California. Quote, "The Batmobile-shaped vehicle will seat four people, do about 5 miles per liter of gas, have a top speed of over 600 mph and will take off and land vertically." It is due for a maiden journey in the next few weeks. "
uhmm.....isn't public transportation to be the solution instead of 80mph/12 inches distant?
heh...
something is really wrong with our civilization...
*scratching head*
Hehe... :)
5 miles per liter is better than many of those popular SUVs can hope for
Don't get your hopes up to see this any time soon. Mollers been working on it for 30 years...
Cheers
ps. Moller International is a company that many of us (the aeronautical engineering grad students here in Davis) poke fun at.
Unless it runs Windows, of course. And then we have yet another meaning to Blue Screen of Death.
Such a setup could also be setup on the ground. I read an article in the IEEE Spectrum (I think it was the Spectrum) about improving traffic throughput by automating the land based highways, also removing the same "idiot factor" to which you refer. Staying on land eliminates the chance of falling out of the sky.
Anyways, the idea behind the automation in the article I read is allowing cars to join together in "platoons" where they travel as one big group down the highway, with a very small distance between each car, and higher speeds are possible because the "platoon" acts as a unit. If a car needs to exit, it coordinates its exit w/ the other cars in the platoon and detaches from the platoon. Anybody read this article? Maybe someone can give the issue of IEEE Spectrum it was in.
Fender benders will be spectacular.
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
I wonder if you can VIFF (vectoring in forward flight)?
That is one of the neat tricks a harrier can do, and since the nozzles actually rotate past vertical (110 degrees IIRC), it just stops dead in the air. Useful when you have a bogey on your tail.
Of course, the decceleration can also give you whiplash.
MrCreosote Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump! "You're right! There isn't enough room to swing a cat in here!"
It's not at all practical for use in the city, and it's a silly design, but if you have the money this little guy would mean that your trip to the cottage doesn't have to be three to six hours in bumper to bumper traffic, but a short drive to the airport or some new kind of helipad... and poof, in an hour, you're further into cottage country than most roads can take you.
It could also open up a whole new realm of commuting for people who need to commute between distant cities... Some people already buy small aircraft for this purpose.
I think that's how cars started out around the turn of the century... the wealthy started moving to the suburbs. In twenty years they might be living anywhere they feel like. Be it telecommuting or hopping into your personal aircraft.
IMHO, I think it would be better to get rid of roads, cars and any notions of personal aircraft, and replace them with thick public transportation and work at home network access. If all the roads were ripped out of my city, and the buildings pushed together I could walk to work. A two-day workweek would be nice, with the pay of a five day week... hmm... then I could work three jobs and buy an aircraft to commute to cottage country :-)
OK, knock me down a point.. I'm off topic.
...you'll see that the single seater is made from recycled BD5 components.
Kinda' humorous building an unsafe, failure doomed aircraft from the bones of older unsafe, failure doomed flop.
Recapitulation is the sincerest form of flattery.
And, no, asking for an actual picture of one of these things in the air is not "redundant". The moderation system seems to have introduced it's own form of "first post" recapitulative noise. Congratulations on having achived nothing.
This is "possible" with airplanes for
decades now.
I guess you just woke up , right ?
Are you serious (seriously, I can't tell when people are joking or not on /.)?
I learned in physics that you can't extract any energy from a static magnetic field. One when a magnetic field is changing in some way can you extract energy from it. Granted, the Earth's magnetic field is changing, but it's changing at an incredibly slow rate. The field is also very weak, so I don't know how useful is would be.
Ever since oil has been used as an energy source people have estimated that we are about to run out. Whether it ba a few decades or a century. There is far more oil in the earth than commonly assumed. Also, if oil becomes very expensive because of scarcity it will not be long before other energy sources are adopted.
Spencer Ogden
Combine this story with the development of
the 'Non Lethal' engine-stopping beam taser,
and I think I see a problem here..
I think I'll wait for airships to come back in.
But, I must say, it also ditracts from the credibility, it's hard to believe as is.
M200:
It would be nice to see some of the results of the '150' flights of the M200. Was this with a different engine than the Freedom Rotary? The technical information is really a bit lax.
Horizontal: What about landing horizontally? Surely this would save fuel, and be useful when flying into a normal air strip. If they are conforming to anything near the FARs for helicopters, then the landing gear should be strong enough.
Low Speed: The website doesn't give any decent information about the low speed characteristics (stall anyone?) or transition stability.
But then.. maybe they don't have the budget to put all of this information online.
Joshua Lamorie
Aerospace Electronics IV
Carleton University
He's assuming a lot of regulations will be written just for these skycars. Such as them getting their own skyways, and not having to share space with other air traffic. Probably won't be happening anytime soon.
But as far as no good ideas in years, if you'd ever taken a ride in the rotary-powered jetboat they built, or their hybrid-electric car (you've never before seen a Civic leave 20 feet of rubber on the pavement), you'd have a different opinion of those rotary engines of theirs. Check out Freedom Motors for what they've been working on the past few years.
Actually, lets scrap all this ounces, furlongs, pints, groats and pecks crap one and for all and just standardise on SI, everyone else has (well the Brits still use miles for road distances but everything else is metric).
Nick
-- "It's a sad day for American capitalism when a man can't fly a midget on a kite over Central Park" - Jim Moran
The claim is that it is a lifting body. It is definitely not a lifting body. Hell, a _brick_ will fly with big enough engines on it.
There is _way_ too much drag and _way_ too little as far as lifting surfaces. When this fellow says it glides but not enough to land, that translates to 'about 4/1 at 500kph', with about as much as lift as a flung rock.
If you had to do the 'glide and find a place to pop the chute' thing, you would be pointed back maybe twenty degrees, losing speed very rapidly, falling like a rock and unable to see the ground in front of you because of the very steep angle of attack. If the front nacelles take more of the lift and allow a saner AoA, drag increases severely. There are no good lifting surfaces in this design- it's basically a four-rotored helicopter. Not intrinsically a bad thing, but not to be downplayed: this is severely fuel-inefficient compared to normal aircraft of its class, and very unhelpful if power is lost.
I suppose it's new as a mass-produced vehicle, but then again, it isn't mass-produced yet (if it ever is).
Doesn't anybody remember the Avrocar? (waaaaay back...)
Does this airplane use the "ground effect" to maintain altitude or is there enough lift created by the tiny stabilizers/wings?
Of course, as I remember, people made fun of the Wright Brothers, too.
I am curious as to how the flight trials go for this vehicle...
lol!
:)
sounds like something my step father has been wishing for for years. He used to always scream "arm the torpedoes!!" when we got stuck behind a motorhome... can you imagine a motorhome SkyCar?! It'd be like an AirBus or something!!
Slick looking 4 seater.
Claims 20 MPG.
Prototype cost ~$1mil to develop.
Expected asking price for production model $60k.
Needs FAA approval to be mass produced.
Owner will need pilot's license to operate.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
Ducted fans (like the Moller) are orders of magnitude quieter than jets (like the Harrier).
One thing that hasn't been touched on here (which is likely to spark some interesting thoughts) is that Mr. Moller's vision is for a completely automated, pilotless system. That means, you climb into your SkyCar (which likely will not be owned buy you, but be available to you on a subscription service from a vertiport), tell it where you want to go, and it will automagically whisk you away to your destination.
How do you like THEM apples?
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
IANAA (I am not an aviator), so I don't know whether this thing will fly or not. But, for it to be practical, it will need one more thing.. Completely computerized control. The real problem with the idea of flying cars is the one truth that has been proven through the ages: people are stupid.
The whole reason for the FAA regulations is because people are fallible (or stupid). If these things were controlled by computer (with sufficient backup systems) and just directed by humans, the FAA might allow "home use". But until you can just get in and say "take me to work" and have the car take care of navigation, this thing would just be too dangerous in the hands of idiots.
-Tom
This looks like it's the same "Merlin" that was about to be released in about 1985 or so. It can do everything CNN says, but the noise level is so outrageous as to be dangerous. (80 db or so? I forget)
That, and it looks like a safety and environmental catastrophe in the making. I'll still take the bus.
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
Remember, these are smart cars you are talking about. If one has a problem, it will try to pull over without slamming on the brakes. The other smart cars will be talking to each other and using radar. Even if there is a road obstruction or a car which stops suddenly, the other cars will be using the brakes faster than the human will (and perhaps driving around the problem, particularly if the vehicles ahead pointed it out).
Ha, Texas has the friendliest drivers. How can prune-pickers know how to drive when there are constant traffic slowdowns?
Man, haven't we all dreamed of this? I've been hoping to see this in my lifetime ever since the final scene in Back To The Future, and the entire Back To The Future II. Now even if this is really gonna be out be the end of the year: :-(
Imagine the layers and layers of red tape this is going to have to go through? Even if it can take off vertically, will it have to be done at an official airpad or runway? Where will you land? All these questions and regulations will tie up this machine for years.
Assuming my newly acquired R2-D2 unit has a speed of under 600 mph, this car would come in handy...
On a serious note, sounds to me like it's going to be driveable (pilotable?) in Utah, and that's about it. (If at all.)
Considering it all, I'd rather have an ME-262 than one of these. (Except without the shitty Junkers engines, of course...) That, and the Swallow'd be a LOT more fun.
This could actually help the quality of driver on the roads. I remember a Click and Clack on Car Talk once saying that airbags should be replaced with pungee sticks so that people whould drive safer since they knew that if they hit something they'd be dead. As for the people that didn't figure it out and kept driving like nuts Darwin would take over and the problem would eventually go away. This same principle applies to flying cars - the idiots will crash and eventualy get wiped out... we might loose a few innocent people along the way but oh well if it gets me home from work faster...
After looking at the picture on this homepage a big question comes to mind...
What is the difference between this and a personal airplane or jet?
This just looks like a less expensive oddly shaped personal jet airplane. You are going to need a pilot's license to use one and I am guessing you would have to take off and land and airports... I seem to be missing the "car" part of this whole thing... any thoughts?
Josh
Great job, moderators. 'Score: 0 (Informative)' ... Keep up the good work!
----------------- ------------ ---- --- - - - -
----------------- ------------ ---- --- - - - -
Your honor is perfectly understandishable.
10-15 years ago I saw some articles on a vehicle similar to this, but it had two wheels in front, one in back. It leaned in corners like you describe. I don't remember if it seated one or two people, but it looked like a hell of a lot of fun to build and drive. I think the articles were in Mother Earth News, of all places.
the harrier is a jet, this uses rotary powered fans which are an order of magnitude quieter. Please read the article before posting. =)
#6495ED - cornflower blue
When calculating the cost to go somewhere, you should look at the cost per mile, not the cost per hour. Remember, this thing goes a lot faster than cars. If it gets 19 miles per gallon, then it will take only slightly more fuel than your average car to get from A to B.
Actually, it could be argued that this thing gives you MORE for your gas money, especially in the city. Think about it - with cars you're stoping and starting all the time. With this thing, you'll fly constantly. No rush hour jams that eat up gas. And no WAITING! If you calculate your TIME at $20 per hour, that will add up QUICK!
I won't believe this until I see it, but if it takes off (no pun intended), it is a real breakthrough.
The CNN story incorrectly quotes the technology on the SkyCar. Moller International is at http://www.moller.com and the correct information is a top speed of 390 mph, 30,000 ft. operating ceiling, 15 miles per gallon, and a 900 mile range. Much more information is available on their website. :^)
fremen asks, ". . . will I be under the jurisdiction of the FAA or the local law enforcement agencies . . . ."
Probably the FAA. There is already a precedent: the falling Pinto in the movie The Blues Brothers. According to the "making-of" documentary, the Pinto really did have to be approved by the FAA.
well, most probably the car sill just sputter when it reaches certain elevation cause of not enough oxygen. or the air is to thin to support rotary wing.
They should make the car look like a DeLorean, with the doors that swing up and the tires move from the bottom sides of the car to come in the car on the underside. Plus, we can even include Mr. Fusion, the time circuits and the flux capacitor.
Not to mention the heat. I was at an airshow once when a Harrier mistakenly hovered over a 60 ft. diameter asphalt helipad. Big mistake - the asphalt and landing markings all melted into a pile of steaming goo, and the area had to be cordoned off for an hour to cool so that no kid would mistakenly wander over and melt off his foot/leg/pelvis. And this thing was hovering at 15 feet. Imagine some hick parking one of the babies at 6 feet over his car, electrical transformer, lawn, or foolish person. I think human intellect might have to evolve before the Moller car becomes safe enough for mass production.
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
From the original New Scientist article:
Another problem that Moller must tackle is noise. Residential areas usually tolerate noise levels about the same as background traffic--up to 70 decibels--but the Skycar generates about 85 decibels. Moller is looking at ways to reduce noise, by carefully avoiding resonances and by using noise cancellation techniques. Even so, Moller admits it will be difficult to reduce noise levels to below 70 decibels.
And those "noise cancellation techniques" would only help the occupants of the Skycar, not the poor boogers in the street below.
Regards, Ralph.
The FAA will just do what they've always done about pilots that violate air regs. Get your tail number (and in this case, likely an ID encoded in your transponder signal) and often as not, have somebody waiting for you when you land.
Words you don't hear on the radio after you tell the tower you're clear of the runway/landing area: "Acknowledged, and please report to the FAA rep.".
Heh, with flying cars you're always on traffic radar.
-- Alastair
Anyone else find this funny? Moller has spent $100 million and 30 years designing their rocket car, which if everything goes according to plan will occupy a spot in anyone's garage who can afford a Lexus (eventually). Even without a mass-produced, 8 fan jetsled in the equation, it would be an optimistic estimate to assume that the world's oil supplies will last for century. So basically, by the time Moller actually produces these babies, there'll only be a need for them for another 50 or 60 years. Compound this by the fact that VTOL is tremendously taxing on fuel - the Sea Harrier that they allude to on their site uses something like 1/3 of its fuel just for a hover takeoff and landing - and I think that "rocket cars for everyone!" will only exacerbate a problem that is still becoming progressively worse in our environmentally conscious, emission regulated, ULEV times.
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
From ther FAQ:
How can I obtain a video of the M400 Skycar?
You can obtain a video of the M400 Skycar by sending your mailing address and your VISA or MC number to our email address. The video costs $35, is 1/2 hour long, and will show the M200X but not the M400 in flight.
Trust me. I've lived in the midwest my whole life. California drivers are gods. The first time I went to LA I was expecting the worst. It was a nice surprise to find out they all drove like me.
>As for takeoff and landing, that will have to >occur at airports, although Moller says that the >FAA is planning to build several hundred
>"vertiports" to handle vehicles like his own and >a civilian model V-22 Osprey.
I wonder about this.. I'm a student pilot and as far as I know, there is no regulation that requires the use of an airport or 'vertiport'. If I wanted to, I could land and takeoff anywhere with the property owners permission. (I've been told that local laws may vary, but this is the FAA position)
Well, I certainly hope it doesn't use NT as a control system - that would give a whole new meaning to BSOD !!!
I thought it could only go like 6 feet above ground or something.
Do the math on this one folks. The only way he can claim that kind of mileage at 600 MPH is if either the coefficient of drag approaches zero or the fuel has an incredible chemical energy per unit volume. We know the first is unlikely because the car doesn't have any particularly revolutionary shape. As for the second, let's just say that you wouldn't be buying it at your local Mobil station.
-jwb
For those interested:
SkyCar homepage.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
How do we expect to be able to manage traffic of this sort? What kind of safety features are there? Where will the first owners fly.. er.. drive it? Not in the high altitudes... not on the public roads.. their *basement* maybe??
"I think we'll need to change our population before we can let the masses fly; get some more intelligence into the general mix of things ;)."
Unfortunately, the current political environment, combined with basic Darwinism, pretty much guarantess that the general population will become LESS intelligent over time, not more. (at least here in the US)
Uh, in the UK you use Imperial Gallons.
Either that, or my Land Rover is sucking
gas at 1.4 times the rate of the right-hand-drive
ones, for no apparent reason.
At $60K (which is obviously impossible)
they would sell at least as many in the
U.S. every year as Mercedes-Benz sells
S-class sedans... 16,000 or so, half of that
in California!
More like, Bloddy screen of death...
It's far easier to forgive your enemy after you get even with him.
It's far easier to forgive your enemy after you get even with him.
I loved my RX7.
I beat the living shit out of that rotary every fscking day with a baseball bat of a lead foot (I had the speeding tickets to prove it... came close to losing my license... thank god for multiple licenses and living on multiple state boundaries).
The engine? Not a whimper... ever.
Now, the car itself taught me some very important, uh, vehicle dynamic lessons. I probably came close to killing myself two or three times. But, hey, if you're going to worship the god of speed, the RX7 is one of the better vehicles in which to exercise you're faith.
actually the M400 is supposed to have a noise level of about 65 db at 500 ft (tho prob a bit more closer to the ground...blowin trashcans and cats and rose gardens into and down the street ;) )
"There is no spoon" - Neo, The Matrix
Not bad for a story published around 1957...
-- ----------------------------------------------
Vive le logiciel... Libre!!!
Actually 20 mpg isn't that great for a small aircraft, it's as bad as that because they're using powered lift. A small Cessna or Cherokee will do a bit better than that, and those are not very aerodynamically clean aircraft. Don't know what the slick composite aircraft (the EZ types, or Lancair or Glasair at the higher speeds) will do.
Consider that mileage in an aircraft is like "all highway miles" in a car -- the engine is running at constant speed, you're not repeatedly stopping and accellerating. Add to that the fact that aircraft have less drag than all but the slickest cars, and don't have to contend with tire rolling resistance, and a light plane easily gets better mileage than a car (until you go to much higher speeds, drag goes up with square of the airspeed).
-- Alastair
600mph is about sonic, and that thing certainly won't survive it.
And personally, I'll believe it when I see it. That piece of junk has been taking up space in Jane's for years, and it STILL hasn't flown the Skycar yet. Notice that no U.S. publication is reporting this. They know better. They've been there before.
They recently just got the picture of the Skycar taken out of Jane's, and was replace only with one paragraph about them. This is probably just another ploy to get media attention for more funding.
bastards. . .
but I like to think this is pretty cool... except for the speed. Isn't that like 747 style numbers? yikes, there's a misprint...
;+)
:)
in any case it reminds me of the movie that I saw 13 times when I was a child (and still get excited to see when it comes on TV). BACK TO THE FUTURE!! God what a bad movie... all three
Whadda ya say we get Micheal J. Fox or Christopher Loyd to test this thing... it'd be kinda like when they named the first Space Shuttle "Enterprise". heheh
Of course, from what I've read of the other posts here, this guy has been talking about making this thing for like 20 years, so I'm not exactly betting on it making its debut anytime soon.
-----BEGIN ANNOYING SIG BLOCK-----
Evan
rooooar
1- Will the people take it seriously?
2- Will the government take it seriously?
3- How will these two groups handle a new form of transportation?
As you can see, there are many questions that need answering before such a thing can take place. This would be a major change in society. Insurance rates would skyrocket
-----
"Be kind to your local milkman... you have his eyes." -Mother
I especially like the article that got -1 (flamebait) but baited people to write 2 or 3 2 (informative) articles.
I like the parenthetical reasons, but the rating system still needs work.
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
Umm... California drivers... Well... Being born and raised in California, I would never, NEVER, consider the average population in California as "a bit knowing on how to drive." Especially in a the more urban areas, such as the bay area, or the LA Sprawl...
And many of them love SUV's...
(Being a Californian myself, I have people fill out waivers before they ride in my car...) (Well, ok, I don't, but I probably should...)
MetallicBurgundy
Though I have a VFR license, flying a helicopter is a bit scary for me because engine failure means you have to count on auto-rotate to land safely and then your landing choices are very slim pickings. This vehichle looks like it would become unstable if one of the engines failed and I doubt it has any sort of auto-rotate that could significantly slow it's fall, meaning certain death. You would have to be a brave soul to ride in it... probably all flights thus far have been un-maned.
Jonathan
jonathanclark.com
-- Virtual Windows Project
See here for an example.
You can find small aircraft like the Cessna 172 for prices in the $30-$40K range used. Sure, it's not VTOL, and it doesn't have the 'B' sci-fi movie look, but it's available now, plus they've been around forever and for good reason (fairly easy to maintain, pretty reliable).
If it would be legal to just take off from anywhere and land anywhere with one of those SkyCars, it would be kind of nifty. Now if you could just do that AND get out of having to file a flight plan, then I'd start saving my cash for one .
"That's Tron. He fights for the Users."
Something the size of a car isn't going to hold
itself up with a jet of air and move horizontally at any reasonable speed and get 5 miles/liter.
Then again, how is it going to go 600 mph unless
it goes way up where the airliners travel at
475 mph? Sure, we're going to have a family
car that maintains pressure, and is made of
materials that can withstand 600 mph of wind,
friction and airspeed. And those two little jets
are going to be all it needs to do this, right?
Will it fly on one jet? Can it cruise to a landing on 0 jets? How the flip does it fly without major wings? How about flight plans and permission to take off?
I think somebody thinks that if people by Star Wars, they will buy anything.
As the Skycar web pages mention, 15 MPG at 350 MPH.
10 gallons to go 150 miles, 20 gallons to go 300 miles. And you'll have gone those 300 miles in less than an hour.
OK, now think about how often you have to go 100 miles away. How often are you going to have to go more than 300 miles?
I don't know the cruising range, but if it is 300-600 miles, you'll still be able to go a great distance even if you have to refuel every hour or two.
At 3,000 miles you'll run out of continent. Ten hours. Are five or ten landings in one day too much to hop across the country in a day, when you've already devoted ten hours to the trip?
Got a 900 mile range. And besides, gas is cheap.
Wow, now all the drug dealers can drive at 350mph
from CA to MEXICO over the international waters
in a car and not go thru custom check points.
Is it possible to drive from NY to London ? assuming higher altitude ? 100ft and no bad weather!!! oh and that you dont run out of fuel
Yeah - and instead of those dashboard Radar detectors, the car would have to come with chaff and flare launchers :)
+----------------------+
| GodEater |
Gentlemen, start your penguins
The use of accelerating air to propel yourself, that is. I mean, why can't we harness the powers of the magnetic field of the Earth and turn that into an energy that we can ride on/be propelled by? This'd be MUCH more economic and would make less noise. Although I must admit, one of these things would make for some REALLY clean streets. :-)
8Complex
Uh, in the UK you use Imperial Gallons.
Either that, or my Land Rover is sucking
gas at 1.4 times the rate of the right-hand-drive
ones, for no apparent reason.
At $60K (which is obviously impossible)
they would sell at least as many in the
U.S. every year as Mercedes-Benz sells
S-class sedans... 16,000 or so, half of that
in California!
http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/tech/CuttingEdg e/skycar990211.html
"A gun is a tool, Marian. No better, no worse than any other tool. An axe, a shovel, or anything." Shane (1953)
Moller's been out on his ranch making anouncements like this for decades. Nothing ever comes of it. I've known folks (fellow students at Davis) who have worked with him on the project. They were good students but I've never heard of this thing doing any more than a hover and a short (unmanned) run. Of course, that's how the wright brothers started.... but the Wrights only took about 5 years to go from a bike shop to the first controlled, powered flight....
Davo -- Free speech, free software, AND free beer.
The site also states that the rotary engines that power the Skycar run on ordinary gasoline.
But then again, I could be wrong.
I remember, must've been 10 or 15 years back, they had a flying car on the cover of popular science. This one was described as having 4 jets (though it would only need two to stay aloft) and triply redundant computer systems for safety. The computers controlled the attitude of the jets etc... The guy hadn't actually built one, but he had the same claim; that a million or so in research funds would result in a mass produced air car for about $100,000. I remember thinking 'Cool, but who's gonna insure it?' Anyone else remember this?
tea
The main question you need to ask yourself is, "How far do I want to go?"
So you figure you can easily cruise 200 miles on one tank of gas. Sounds just fine with me, since you're also going pretty fast you don't mind refueling so often.
Unless you have a 600 mile daily commute?
--
-- Spankmeister General
Are you sure about the two wheels at the back, one at the front? Otherwise it sounds like it might be a Mercedes F300 Life-Jet ( more photos)
rant
Awesome! All that it needs are little "O"'s to come out of the back when you fly it! =P
"Computers will never truly be free until the last windows user is strangled with the entrails of the last mac user."
moller's been ripping people off for years. They probably threatened a class action if he didn't come out with something pronto. It'll go into trial and fail miserablly (either by hook or by crook... maybe the FAA will be moller's accomplis, who knows)
Basically, they guy hasn't had any good ideas since super-trap mufflers and his drone rotary engine DoD contract.
...and as a pilot, I find his concept (the operator will just be along for the ride) flawed. Anyone who's operated under the FAA's free-flight rules knows that there's a little more to the equation than punching in a destination, kicking back and lighting up a doobie.
Hell, he even got press over here in Japan... fscking amazing..
I once thought as you did re: California drivers. I was born in TX, came here as a kid and learned to drive here. I'd heard all the normal bias against California drivers.
:) There would have to be some serious limits in place. (Beyond the pilots license.) Have an accident, crash land in someone's 4.6 mill. home, oops. I don't think my insurance would cover all that :)
THEN I started traveling to other parts of the country. (Particularly the Midwest & New England areas) California drivers are among the best. (And I live in an urban Calif. area)
Now, do I think they could handle skycars?
...and he says airpooling is the way of the future. football field-sized runways for VSTOL community-operated planes.
:)
Commuting? Gone. Replaced with Telecommuting.
Airliners? Gone. Replaced with airpools.
Cars? Gone. Also replaced with airpools.
Bottom line, semipersonal air transportation for the last half of the 21st century.
Give 'Life after Airliners' a read - very interesting stuff.
He claims aircars like this particular one will fail because of factors like fuel consumption (960hp doesn't sip fuel), noise (look at their spec!), pollution (960hp!), and a few other things. Putting over 2400lbs of thrust down over a thrust disk of about 4 square feet total size is *never* efficient.
I tend to trust Burt Rutan's judgement when he talks about efficiency, after all he's the only person on earth to design a plane to fly around the world nonstop without refueling.
Also did anyone notice a significant resemblance between the Podracer in Star Wars: The Phantom Menace and Bob Pond's Pondracer? Which one came first?
While you're all talking about speed, accidents, gallons and stuff....think about this....
If it can go up in the air...people will NEVER wait in line to cross an "airrpad"...they'll just make it go highjer...and then you have thousands of people going up and down in the air....
Also...what about police??? What are they going to say when you are 200-500 feet above the ground?? "please step out of your car?"...i see somebody falling down here. And the police can't just go in front of a car to stop it if it's speeding.....it'll just turn quickly around, above or below??
But a great thing about theese vehicles could be to make them to an ambulance....just imagine the posibilities in that....if somebodu has a heart attack....an air ambulance could be there like in 1 minute instead of maybe 5-10-15 minutes....and the same for police vehicles and so on....
...for the last three years or so. It isn't going to happen. Even if it did, it wouldn't be useful for most people. This guy has been cranking out "prototypes" for eternity. I have yet to see a picture or video of one airborne.
Ever see someone driving the wrong way during rush hour on a four lane interstate? Happened to me a few weeks ago.
He intends to capitalize on the unique properties of the wankel design in avation. Once started, nothing short of lose of fuel or destruction of the methanical rotor will stop the motor. (overheading, lose of sparkplug, incorrect fuel mixture are literally ignored.) They also have great mass to power ratios.
Mazda abandon their designs due to repeated failures in cold weather. (lubrication would literally hold the side seals in, thus no compression.) And mazda suffered from inablity to rework the engine after usage. This meant if the engine failed at 100,000 miles you basically needed a new engine.
It remains to be seen if Moller has overcome these problem as both were problems in mass production models that would not have appeared in the lab. As a replacement for a 2 stroke water craft motor, his motors are a good choice.
You can read more on his Freedom motors page
Anonymous with reason.
Hold on...my car has a range of about 300 miles (it's a Miata...teeny gas tank for a teeny car). I've seen few cars with much greater than 400 mph range...seems to me like you'd have to make the same number of gas stops in a given trip whether flying one of these things or driving...the trip is just compressed. How is this bad?
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Well, if you can design a better aircraft than this fellow, I'll buy one from you not him.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
How long until someone parks old ships every 200 miles between Hawaii and major continents? How much income could they get from running the only gas and food service for the next 200 miles?
New Scientist
-Yarn - Rio Karma: Excellent
The bloke behind this project is the same bloke who invented the Supertrap Muffler, I saw an article about him a few years ago in Popular Mechanics, complete with a picture of the rotary engined flying car, with the nacells hanging out the sides.
Sounds like a perfect application for a centralized GPS-based control system. Take off at an authorized vert takeoff point, jack into the local aircar control system, and sit back. Much easier to do in free flight, I would guess, than trying to do the same in a land based transportation system.
Hmmm, better not run the system on a win based system -- computer crashes take on a whole new dimension...
The Skycar's estimated maximum ceiling is 30,000 feet. It's definitely an aircraft =) They're limited to low altitude for the tests because their insurance won't cover much more until the vehicle is proven.
Now whether or not it will actually work well enough to even get off the ground, I don't know.
Top speed is also an estimated 390 mph, not the 600 mph in the Reuters article, and the estimated milage is 15 mpg on standard unleaded gasoline, with a maximum range of 900 miles.
The definition of exactly what the vehicle is has been set by the FAA. It is classified as a "powered-lift aircraft." This contrasts with fixed wing for standard airplanes, and rotary wing for helicopters.
As for takeoff and landing, that will have to occur at airports, although Moller says that the FAA is planning to build several hundred "vertiports" to handle vehicles like his own and a civilian model V-22 Osprey.
But then again, I could be wrong.
The Harrier uses a fanjet with very high velocity
exhaust out of smaller ports for a much higher weight vehicle.
The aircar uses ducted fans, large ports, and is light weight.
Noise goes up as some power of the exhaust velocity, which goes up with weight and down with nozzle diameter.
It won't be that bad.
(Loudest noise I ever heard was being a hundred or so feet from somebody demonstrating the old Bell rocket belt. I've witnessed large rocket launch/landing (DC-X) too, but that was from a couple miles away. Sounded like a jet.)
-- Alastair
By my observations that company is always flying by a wing and a prayer. (For poeple who think this is the first time he announced those specs, I recommend digging through your Popular Science a half decade back.) They did not have the funding to build the necessary redundancy into the electronics or hire experts necessary to insure stable flight at low velocities. When I left, the vehicle was little more than a mock up with a seriously flawed air redirection system. (I just hope that they have completely replaced that assembly before they attempt flight or it will be a very costly experiment.)
The only person crazy enough (or that could wave enough liblity) to dare test pilot those contraptions is Paul Moller himself. He is an expert pilot who can actually keep a moderately unstable craft airborn. I wish him luck. Just be sure to find the date of his flight and make sure you are far from Davis, CA.
Anonymous with reason.
Exactly; people have enough problems with two ;-) ;).
degrees of freedom; can't imagine a third!
I've been fearing the day when we'll have
"flying cars". Just too many concerns to let
it fly, so to speak. I think we'll need to
change our population before we can let the
masses fly; get some more intelligence into the
general mix of things
--- witty signature
Looks like I am just about to finish that pilots
license at the right time.. This might even
replace my dream of getting certified and
owning my own single seater hilo.
Can you imagine how much fun you could have with
this? VTOL is basically unheard of in the private
sector and not ever a tiny bit remotly to this price.
Malice..
That is just going to be the maiden voyage. For the rest they say its just a plane with VTOL, its not meant as a ground effect vehicle so you dont have to fly close to the ground. (wouldnt want to do that at 600 KPH anyway)
I believe I saw something similar on an old show called 'beyond 2000' on the discovery channel. They called it the 'Lean Machine'. I later saw it at an auto show in dallas, don't recall the manufacturer though.
"What happens if I reach an altitude of 50000ft and then run out of fuel? "
Flying cars, warp drive (see yesterday) and Linux on the desktop.
Is 2000+ going to be a great century or what?
(Now if the politicians can just manage to avoid starting WW III...)
-- Alastair
One of the biggest problems with the F/A-18 is that its fuel capacity is too limited. Fuel efficiency doesn't mean much if your range is still crippled by not being able to carry ENOUGH fuel.
Also, you can't really compare it to a Harrier... the two are used for different purposes.
> NY to DC in 20 minutes, or NY to Boston in a half an hour, or something like that
In other words, about what current aircraft do. It's an airplane, meaning airports, meaning airport regulations and security. It won't change the world that much. I guess if a metro area was covered by dozens of vertiports instead of two or three airports it would reduce your ground travel time, but that's all.
But if it does come to light, the market for air traffic controllers is going to go through the roof. Maybe I should look at a new career.
I want my bullet train.
How much you wanna bet the police forces in large cities (LA, NYC, etc) are going to get modified versions of these? Cheaper to buy and maintain, and you probably can mount searchlights, radios, radar detectors (and machine guns) on these as well? Now that's bringing law enforcement up to par!
::whistle::.
These would also could make for inexpensive scout craft (if not anti-infantry vehicles) for the military, neh?
Oh well, I'll just go apply for my pilot's liscence now
--Rob
I don`t think it`s likely we`ll be having huge
traffic problems any time soon. Even if these
things do work, they`re going to cost $60,000.
Not everyone`s going to be able to get their
hands on one.
Oh, and 19mpg isn`t that marvellous. Anything
below 30 is viewed as poor in the UK. But then,
we have huge petrol taxes, so it`s more important
to us..
Bloody, rather. :P
mental note: turn spell checker ON.
It's far easier to forgive your enemy after you get even with him.
It's far easier to forgive your enemy after you get even with him.
The people I share the road with now can't even pilor a Geo Metro, much less an airplane/car.
Not two jets. Eight in the 4-passenger, 4 in 2-passenger, 2 in pilot-only.
Ducted fans, like a Harrier. VTOL, then the ducts rotate and allow most of the thrust to go rearward.
It is under FAA control, so the licensed pilot has to follow helicopter/VTOL/STOL rules.
Look at the Skycar webpage and read the FAQ.
I do wonder why their liability hasn't allowed them to try real test flights on the 2-seater. Or maybe the 2-seater does not have the two parachutes which the 4-seater has?
... that stay on the ground.
:)
The article said you'd need a pilot's license to fly one, but I don't get the impression you need to take off and/or land from an airport... if there are too many of these things whizzing around, aren't there going to be a lot of fatalities?
Cheers
Alastair
-- "I believe the human being and the fish can coexist peacefully." - George W. Bush, 29 September 2000
I'm looking for information on a alternative vehicle I saw a couple of months ago on Discovery or some other Edutainment channel. It was a three-wheeled, rear engine vehicle with two wheels in the back, one in the front, and a design not unlike an f16 cockpit. It was a two seater (i think) and got its ability to corner quickly by leaning like a motorcycle. It was a very interesting vehicle to say the least, and I'd like to find more information about it.
Lowmag.net
but didnt you ever see The 5th Element? :P (egad yes it DID suck but the effects were kinda cool) They had NASTY NASTY traffic problems :P
"There is no spoon" - Neo, The Matrix
Try reading the FAQ - http://www.moller.com/faq/
it seems to address most of your, like:
Where will the Skycar be permitted to take off and land?
Only at FAA registered vertiports. Airports qualify as vertiports.
How high has it flown?
The M200X has flown to a height of forty feet. This has allowed us to determine its performance
out of ground effect.
So I guess it is intended to cruise a bit higher
than six feet, and I think it's pretty safe to assume that it carries more than 23 gallons of
gas.
Jordan
Wow, that's really neat! A flying car! But you know, amongst the many other problems that I've read here about the machine, one problem I thought of is where will I be able to fly it? I hate to follow the path of the many sceptic messages I've read on this page, but surely you don't expect to mix cars and hovercrafts on the same road do you? Lots of money goes here into building new roads, highways, or whatever these things are going to fly over. Will it fly over water? They'll probably have to be pretty straight paths too. I mean, knowing the crazy drunk drivers of today (and unless all the steering is automated), I cringe when I think of one of them getting behind the wheel (or joystick) of one of these speed demons.
This brings me to another point. Going 600mph or 600kph, which ever it is, any accident is going to prove fatal at least 90% of the time. And a seat belt is not going to help much in a crash. Perhaps if ejection seats were installed or something. That'd be good. And is it going to be single file flying, side by side, or what? And if someone crashes, breaks down, or runs out of gas, how is the next person going to see it in time to avoid a collision? And the person behind that person? And will these things explode? Anyway, just some stuff to think about.
This Moller guy's work has been in Popular Science and Popular mechanics for at least fifteen years. I remember him building a flying saucer, that had a bunch of wankel engines (six or eight of them) arranged in a disk surrounding the pilot. His biggest problem then was that if one engine failed, the craft became unstable.
I've been reading about this skycar idea for at least five years. I wonder if he's actually got his stability and engine-reliability act together?
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
And if you want VTOL, you can buy a Rotorway helicopter (kit, but pretty easy to assemble from what I've heard) for about the same $60K. Rotorway is pretty fancy as homebuilt helicopters go, there are others you can get much cheaper.
-- Alastair
Several companies have been selling "flying car" kits in my Popular Science and Popular Mechanics mags for years... although I've always wondered how they stayed in business because I've never heard of anyone actually buying and building one.
I must say, this new one looks pretty sweet, though.
skip that traffic....circle for half an hour over the nearest "vertiport" and then walk/drive the remaining couple of miles to your destination?
they're gonna need a vertiport on every street corner before these can think about replacing cars, and if everyone lands in the same place how are they going to handle parking?
"sorry, this vertiport is full. you have been diverted to jfk international. press your red panic button now if you are low on fuel......"
+++++
The harder you look the less you see. That's what we're up against.
Its only hovering at 6ft in the first test. Its expected to fly much higher during later tests. Do you seriously think anyone would plan on flying at the quoted operational speed at the altitude of 6ft....lol
From the Reuters article on CNN.com:
But then again, I could be wrong.
The skycar appears to have airframe parachutes, something like the emergency 'chutes ultralights have. So assuming you were stupid enough to do this, you could just deploy the parachutes and float back down to earth (or water :] ).
Odd thing is they listed it in "miles per liter." Shouldn't it be either "miles per gallon" or "kilometers per liter"? I guess they wanted to make sure they confused everybody -- Americans and Europeans.
I don't know what the purpose of this would be. We have enough accidents at 30 mph, the last thing I want is some drunk driver crashing into my house at 600 mph. Maybe there could be some market for a super-taxi -- you know, NY to DC in 20 minutes, or NY to Boston in a half an hour, or something like that. Not for consumer use, that's for sure.
I hope this never takes off (no pun intended -- honestly).
-----BEGIN ANNOYING SIG BLOCK-----
Evan
rooooar
Ever actually been around a Harrier? I have.
Not a pretty sound. In fact, its not only painful and deafening, its almost physically nauseating. We are talking fast, permanent hearing loss folks.
The kind of noise a Harrier makes in VTOL will make you reach for the SAM. Not by choice, by instinct, by rage, to make the pain stop. I know I am being redundant. Unless they can make these very, very quiet as well, this ain't gonna fly with the home folks. Which is you an me bubba (or bubbette, whatever).
"Another point about this project is fuel consumption. Assume my fuel
economy is 19 miles per gallon. Now assume that I am flying at 450
miles per hour (Not full speed, but fast enough). The math for this
works out to me needing 23.6 gallons per hour. That's a lot of fuel"
This is only if you don't include the effects of the flubber.
did yall check out their M150 one-seater? its pretty cute too. I guess these are basically like having private planes/jets that have VTOL capabilities and you just happen to be able to launch from home
"There is no spoon" - Neo, The Matrix
This is from Mollers web page:(formatting probably went all to hell...)
Specifications: (Projected)
Passengers
4
Cruise Speed (25,000 ft)
350 mph
Maximum Rate of Climb
6400 fpm
Maximum Range
900 miles
Gross Weight
2200 lbs.
Fuel Capacity
45 gal
Operating Ceiling
30,000 ft
Power (2 min. rating @ SL.)
990 hp
The engine of the Geo Metro is beginning to be used in light aircraft where you'd normally find abrasive little Rotax two-strokes that sound like chainsaws :) :) :P There was the horizontal stab, some vertical stabs but no wing, therefore unless it's a lifting body, it can't really stall, and spins are also unlikely.
And this is real, not weird vapor-design
Frankly, I think I could design a better aircraft than this fellow. Though I'll give him this- seems to have no wing, so it's like a four-rotored helicopter that balances itself via computer. What this means is that the thing would in fact be easier to fly than a normal aircraft- at a really substantial fuel efficiency penalty
> M200
:-)
Yeah, good questions. I'd like to see some in-flight pix.
> Horizontal landing
Not necessarily. It isn't clear what the low speed lift capabilities are, other than bad, so it doesn't gain you much, and it adds to the complexity of the landing gear. Actually horizontal landing is undesirable because of the landing gear and other issues (think about it, you're trying to 'dock' with a surface at as close to zero vertical speed as possible while maintaining a high (50-200 kts, depending on the aircraft) horizontal speed. The only reason airplanes do it is because they don't have a choice.
>Low speed (eg stall)
Doesn't really apply to a powered lift vehicle since the lift (except at high speed) is not aerodynamic but propulsive. Yes, I imagine if you went to a really high angle-of-attack at 300kt where most of the lift is aero, you'd have problems. But I suspect lifting surface stalling would be the least of those problems
It's not an aeroplane, and not really much like a helicopter either. Think Harrier without the wings.
> Carleton University
Hi, my brother's a Carleton grad (Physics, '86). I used to fly out of Rockliffe.
-- Alastair
If cops get surface-to-air missiles, then they may have to offer a stealth option.
Your password has expired, please login to change it.
If it claims to be like a car, then it'll probably have a 400 mile range. while getting places fast is nice, i don't think refueling every 40 minuets assuming constant fuel use even at 600 mph. is something that i'd enjoy a whole lot.
That father turns around to tell his kids to shut up or he'll pop the canopy right here. He doesn't see the other vehicle merging . Blam.
Late for work, flying over any speed limits while trying to put your tie on, shave, change the CD and talk on your cellular (hands free units are for wimps) all while juggling your fresh McDonalds' coffee. Spill coffee and take out a string of cars going the opposite direction.
I think that the only way to do this would be to have a central "Flight Authority" that drives everyone... Your average person isn't smart enough or dextrous enough to drive a car in the city, let alone FLY. Two extra directions to think about, and whole new types of turns, pitches, etc.
--- http://foo.ca
I would hate to live in a large city with a bunch of people flying one of those.
Most people can hardly drive, much less fly.
I hope they come equiped with photon torpedoes.
"Aggrrrr! You cut me off!"
This sig is false.
Here it is:
http://www.slalom3.com/
More information on electric vehicles:
http://www.powerassist.com/
"Offtopic" maybe, but "Troll" ... ?
The Arrow:
Thanks for nothing, Diefy!
Hope you had a nice ride on the way down!
BLACK FRIDAY 40th ANNIVERSARY
NEVER FORGIVE ~ NEVER FORGET
[We don't come from a planet. We come from a grid sector.]
Does this mean if I point UP, I can fly to MIR ??
What happens if I reach an altitude of 50000ft and then run out of fuel?
God help us
And the drivers get to pay for it directly, without requiring an organization to operate a transport system.
Or maybe you'd prefer an automated taxi system. But it won't work on regular roads, although I like the small elevated tracks and 4-passenger vehicles being prepared for the Chicago suburb.
Ground effect wouldn't exactly matter for an airplane. If this thing actually flies low enough to use the ground effect, I'd be a lot more worried about sucking things up into my fancy new jet engines, thereby causing a flameout and crash, than gas mileage.
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
There have been times when I could just flip a switch and fly out of a traffic jam, and just leave it all behind.
The idea of a flying car is nice, but I'd be happier with a Harely.
"Ride to live."
"Live to ride."
:)
Steven
If you send an important message late at night, you'll probably kick yourself the next day when you read what you sent.
--Steven's law of computing No. 6
If all the claims are true, there are two wickedly cool things to notice. 1) $60,000 is dang cheap for something like this (if you believe that price is accurate). 2) Preformance seems to be very good.
But, don't forget all the drawbacks. 1) Pilot licences are expensive to get. 2) Sure, maybe this will be something you can fit in a garage and take off vertically, but, accidents will be fatal when you "bump" into another "car" and go plunging 100 feet down to your death. 3) Air Traffic is a nightmear to manage NOW, with professional pilots, amagine every bad driver you ever saw no in the sky! 4) 5 miles per liter? That's about 1 mile per gallon!? How much fuel can it hold!? The thing has to be a flying fuel tank to get very far, and when it crashes... BOOM!
It's wild to see stuff like this, but even if it is true, and all they claim is valid, there are still years and years of legal problems ans safty hazards to deal with.
they'll have to be to catch my ass when I'm driving!! ;-)
8Complex
If these things become commonplace does that mean that traffic cops will be armed with surface to air missiles?
Merging? You're missing the point: 3D space. You don't merge, you plot a non-intercepting course.
A couple of points. The first is the question of whether this is a land vehicle or an air vehicle. That could prove troublesome to this project. It looks as if this will qualify as an air vehicle. Does that mean I have to take off and land at an airport? Once I take off, will I fly over roads or something else. Considering the fact that I have to fly only 6 feet off of the ground, then I am fairly limited in my terrain. So, do I have to fly 6 feet off of the ground on open terrain, possibly harming my $60,000 flying machine? Or do I fly 6 feet off of the ground on roadways, where I'll be able to fly at 600 mph.
This brings up another question. If I fly over roadways, will I be under the jurisdiction of the FAA or the local law enforcement agencies (DPS, DMV, police, etc). I doubt I would be able to fly at the posted speed limit of 55, 60, 70 or whatever. Perhaps I'm wrong (I haven't seen the specs), but it would seem that flying that slow would possibly create problems with lift.
Another point about this project is fuel consumption. Assume my fuel economy is 19 miles per gallon. Now assume that I am flying at 450 miles per hour (Not full speed, but fast enough). The math for this works out to me needing 23.6 gallons per hour. That's a lot of fuel (My car doesn't hold that much). So, now the question is also an issue of size. Do you create a smaller vehicle, but require refueling once an hour or so. Or do you create a larger vehicle, which would be more unwieldy (Especially at 6 feet above the ground) and require more training to fly. On a side note, it was shown during the Falkland war that Herrier jumpjets, despite all of their perceived advantages, had horrible fuel consumption rates. The American F-18, despite not being able to land or take off vertically, is considered by many to be a superior jet due to its lower fuel requirements (And the benefit of longer range). Of course, I digress...
Overall, the project sounds like it will need two things. A better definition of just what kind of vehicle this is (And the rules that apply), and better fuel milage.
even with driving license requirement, we still see plenty of road freakster...
and now they claim "no license" requirement...
isn't this dangerous?..heh heh..
at least there won't be 'blocking the traffic' cause some dim wit trying to parallel park.