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. "
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
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!
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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..
...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?
New Scientist
-Yarn - Rio Karma: Excellent
It's a bit better than a brick or a flung rock - from the New Scientist article -
"At a speed of 250 kilometres per hour, the engines produce only a tenth of the lift. Nearly half of the lift comes from the four nacelles---even the vanes that direct the airflow generate lift. Another 16 per cent comes from the fuselage and about a third comes from the rear wing."
Anyway, it's got eight engines, which ought to be enough for a brick.
rant
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.
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.
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 actually met a guy who was working on this... On a private road down in southern California (one with magnets imbedded, to provide navigation information to the cars...), they had the cars in formation, about two inches apart, going 80 mph... (Something that would probably be disturbing, if you were in one...)
Although it removes the idiot factor, on computer glitch and WAM 300,000 car pile up... Kinda makes you nervous...
As a safegaurd to that, such systems are supposed to be monitored by an active human driver, ready to take over in case of an emergency... But, even if you are an awesome driver, could you really manage to stear clear of a problem when going 80 mph in even 12 inch formation???
MetallicBurgundy
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
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
From the Reuters article on CNN.com:
But then again, I could be wrong.
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).
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.
If these things become commonplace does that mean that traffic cops will be armed with surface to air missiles?
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.