Slashdot Mirror
One-person Air Scooters
Tempest wrote to us:"Ever wanted to soar over tall buildings with the greatest of ease? In a few years, with the help of NASA and a Silicon Valley engineer, Michael Moshier, you may be able to do so. After a lengthy training program, of course. " The specs are impressive: 80 MPH, 20 MPG. You can check out the story on CNN or the company's website.
I'm just thinking...a device like this would make the getaway from a bank robbery very easy.
= -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Police chasing in cars would be stuck if criminal jetted over a building out of their line of sight and helicopters would be in trouble because this thing would be able to move through areas they can't really follow.
Either the police would have to have to keep pace with the average purchasing for these things or thre would have to be some way to track them (portable radar?) so police wouldn't need helicopters for each chase.
Anyway...maybe I'm giving the criminals too much credit but I seem to remember several movies where jewel theives et. al. used jetpacks to completely ellude the police...
Just my $0.02...
- JoeShmoe
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-- I wonder which will go down in history as the bigger failure: the War on Drugs or the War on Filesharing
People wouldn't trust the things. They would be intimidated by the "rigorous training" required and the fact that you die if you screw up.
This is a very real issue that I think gets overlooked sometimes. If the engine in your car dies out, in most cases it rolls to a stop, and you get out unhurt. If the engine on your Solotrek goes out, you die. All it'll take is one accident with these things to dampen public enthusiasm in a hurry.
Personal flying machines may be the way of the future, but until they can make it 100% safe (well close to it anyway), the public won't bite. Of course maybe Moshier's already thought about this and has some solutions. I hope so, because I want one of these things.
Woah dude!
There is no way these things will sell for $60,000. Try $600,000. Do you know how much carbon fibre, boron and other high cost/low weight material is in them? a single kilogram of carbon fibre cost's well over a $1000 and that a raw product. Consider that a) there are many kilo's of carbon fibre in each one and b) you have to mould and set the stuff.
There is no way $60,000 is going to buy you a four seater aircraft, unless you get a second hand cessna 172. And that is made from aluminium and steel.
Dan. -- So what if it's spelt wrong, nobody's perfect
Id need somplace for my coffee, wouldnt want to spill thru someones open sunroof (oops). With one of these and a cell phone Id be in commuter heaven.
I hit 80 on my motorcycle on 101 in Silicon Valley just to keep up. If I had to pay a lot to get an air cycle, I would like it to go a lot faster.
I have to slow down to go down the white stripe between the cars in traffic jams, but the motorcycle is cheap, >45MPG, and a thrill. I wonder if flying over everyone at a constant 80 MPH would be as much fun.
Id hate to be a bit inebriated and fall of one of those things if you indead can "soar over buildings"
It'd be ok, if you attached a legrope (from your surfboard) to it, then you could bunge jump as well !
"A collection of 10,000 nuts and bolts trying desparately to get away from one another."
This is from a New Scientist article from May '99. It's a 'SkyCar' developed by Paul Moller, and it's going to be in the air RSN (so they say), and is not manually controlled i.e. requires ATC (not air training corps -- for U.K. readers) above and beyond the current state of the art. This should mean no chance of crashing, (help! it's not running *NIX I hear you shriek...) or shunting your neighbour (not sp, there may be others, but I can spell neighbour (unlike Win 9n UK english edition grumble grumble)). It looks like I won't even need a driving license at this rate - well at least I've got my bike!
Well, judging from how the engines are designed, compared to how normal piston engines are designed, I'd expect a much greater efficiency in the engines. (in case you didn't read it, instead of using a piston engine (which has to reverse its direction of movement many times a second) it uses a circular combustion chamber with a triangular blade which has to rotate to let the exhaust out (in a constant direction). As to getting 390 mph, having 8 large, turbojet (or turbofan, I couldn't completely tell from the pictures), that sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Many commercial airplanes use 2 (albeit larger) turbojet engines and fly notably faster than that.
;)
- Rei, the Skycar Hopeful
Does anybody else besides me have a burning desire to go watch Woody Allen's sleeper again after seeing this?
Yes, I really mean what I said.
You have to look at the number of deaths per miles travelled as you say. Of all passenger road travel, the deaths per mile (at 35mph) are about 10,000 - 1 to the deaths per mile of passanger air travel (at 600mph). That excludes military action eg. KAL 007 was shot down etc.
Dan. -- So what if it's spelt wrong, nobody's perfect
Well I cant deny that this sounds really cool, but I just cant see much use in it for Joe Average.
80 MPH at 20 MPG for 1 person to go about 90 miles?
1. Hell even a motorcycle would be a better mass transit vehicle.
2. If ya wanna take a buddy ya better bring a rope.
3. Even the most foolhardy insurance company won't touch this thing.
4. I don't own a jet ski/motorcycle and I know how to swim/walk, forget about walking home or swimming to shore if it runs out of gas.
5. You don't have to worry about refolding that roadmap because ya cant hold the damn thing and maintain control at the same time.
6. Its easy to know who has the right of way at a 4 way street intersection but what about a 360 degree 3D intersection?
7. Airplanes glide, copters auto rotate, but unless ya have a ballistic parachute your screwed.
8. Crosswind landings are going to slam you through your neighbors living room window.
9. Even as the crow flies I can't see this as a decent way to get from point A to point B without GPS.
10. I live in Kansas and bird hunting is really big, some drunk with a shotgun is sure to ruin a nice day of airscoot'n.
That being said, if they solve 9 10ths of these problems, I really want one of these things.
"Doctor, it's not the voices I hear in MY head, but the voices I hear in YOUR head that really frighten me."
Slashdotted to heck
Nt to mention that I don't trust a vehicle designed by a company who's web server isn't slashdot proof!!!!!
"Doctor, it's not the voices I hear in MY head, but the voices I hear in YOUR head that really frighten me."
I remember back in elementary school (mid 70's), we learned how by the year 2000, we would all fly to work in our hover cars, and we would have robot maids who would do all our housework for us. Well, I'm still sitting in traffic, and I still have to pay a human maid :). Pardon me if I am skeptical, but I have been promised a lot of things over the years based upon one of concept devices that never really worked as well as they said they did. I'll believe this one when I'm running from the FCC after violating SFO airspace with a six pack and a BB gun.
That makes me contemplate the risks of the further future.
We all want personal teleporters, right? Imagine this, in a car accident you might get a mangled face, but essentially you're still you. In a teleporter accident, you might end up as 'Brundlefly', or worse still, me! (And believe me, it ain't a pretty sight!)
Energy is energy is energy.
...and pollution is pollution is pollution. No wonder yanks generate about a gazillion tonnes of greenhouse gases every second... imagine when they've all got one of these strapped to their backs.
...not that it's not a bloody cool toy of course!
What would we call this new breed of transport? "Air scooter" provokes a childish view of the transportation medium. How about calling it the Punkfreakmobile.... your thoughts...
-=>>=-
Yes, the reliability of the vehicle is quesionable as well. Apparently Bill Clinton has endorsed the scheme, which worries me greatly - The Air Scooter wlll always be going down on you.
-=>>=-
> they're actually enforced on all planes
Do you think it would be easy to enforce the rules if everyone had one?
> and there are no wankers in the air.
But there would be if everyone had personal flying transportation.
> Planes are adequately separated
> and vertically spaced... shall I go on.
I was not talking about planes as they are now. I was talking about a world of personal flying devices. I'm quite happy with the assertion that it is safer to be in a plane than a car nowadays.
> If I were driving and yanked the wheel to the
> right at top speed, what would happen?
Depends. If I was in a personal flying device and veered right, I could easily hit people in the next lane to the right. But you're right in that there's no fixed obstacles - though the penalty for a crash is likely to be more severe.
I tend to agree with this guy. At first it might sound like a cool idea, but just imagine everyone on an average LA highway traffic jam suddenly take to the air. All those berserk gunmen could start bombing Highschools from the air instead of going in and do the diryt work themselves. Not to mention the problem of landing - Where do you land in a big city? On a rooftop? on a normal parking space? What about air traffic? The airspace over big cities is pretty full anyway (I can just see an air-car collide with a Boeing 747 over Hong Kong). Terrorists could pack one of these things full of TNT and instead of park it under the World Trade Center, they smash it into the building.
No, air traffic is NOT for the masses. Maybe it would be better to create a kind of "air taxi service" - inexpensive short-range flights could be possible with such devices.. Helicopters are loud and "windy", so "aircars" or somesuch might be a better alternative anyway. Currently, if you want to go to a city which is not one of the major metropoles, it's nearly impossible to get a flight. Many smaller towns don't even have an airport. Is this an alternative to passenger trains maybe?
If you think CO2 is pollution, then please stop breathing.
If the flying part doesn't work out, the company is poised to take over the CPU cooling market.
---- "If we have to go on with these damned quantum jumps, then I'm sorry that I ever got involved" - Erwin Schrodinger
You must be talking about that infernal horseless carriage... the automobilie. It used to require butloads of spareparts and a mechanical supervision on a drive-by-drive basis. Now you can drive a car off the lot and go 100,000 miles "before the first scheduled tune-up." It may kill your engine, but you can also NOT change the oil for what 20,000 miles??? Mainenance demands for airplanes have gone done as well, and the anal level of checks/fixins is the cost of very safe transportation.
The last thing I want is the general public to go flying around as if they were driving cars. Imagine, you take a ton of tests just like for getting a liscense to drive a car, and you see how many people do reckless things with their cars?
I'd hate to see the wrecks from drunken pilots.
Hell, I'm sure every petty criminal in the world would want one. "Hey, lets fly over top of this guys house and take pictures of his wife naked!"
And damn, imagine the escalation in fly-by shootings...
Just my opinion, but not only would the government probably not permit it, but if they did, those screening tests for who can fly these things would have to be pretty damn strict.
---------------------------
"I'm not gonna say anything inspirational, I'm just gonna fucking swear a lot"
---------------------------
Well I figured this would make its way to Slashdot when I saw it on CNN. If the two propellers just inches away from the pilot's face don't lower the cost of ground beef the uncontrollable dive to the death in the event of an engine failure would make a better ride than Valuejet.
I haven't gotten into the company's Web site, so I don't know if they discuss engine out characteristics. Helicopters can generate enough lift out of the windmilling rotor to cushion an emergency landing IF the engine failure occurs at a high enough altitude. This contraption looks like it would just fall out of the sky. Well, so does any heavier than air aircraft, come to think of it. Anyway, inquiring minds want to know...
I know very little about Germany, but I do know a little, feel free to correct me at will. As far as I know, in Germany the driving laws are very strict and require expensive training/certification to get a license, much more than America, at least. Aslo, I was under the impression that the cars had to pass very strict certifications etc. So, I was wondering, and hoping some Deutschlanders would input, how closely does this parallel the automobile situation in Germany, if at all.
Thanks
Or not... what do I know?
I live in a rural area. I like it because of the clean air and the low cost of living. The disadvantage is, any place interesting is at least 40 miles away. I'd love to have one of these.
What happens when we run out of the various fossil fuels? Why not just continue using that wonderful, free solar energy? Or maybe something else? I want my Shipstone and a Fusion Reactor.
So far I haven't seen anyone bring up the single user helicopters. I remember hearing on the news not more then a couple of years ago of a single person helicopter smaller then a two seat car capable of reaching speeds or roughly 75 MPH. I don't recall the name of the company, but they were selling from somewhere between 3 to 5 thousand dollars. Plus certification costs and lessons of course. Hell, I'm sure that some of you out there have wasted more then that on a good jetski or waverunner.
I think that the company that made the IDO's Identitfied Flying Object (Not and official name, but I kind of like it) went out of business. I guess the average America, much like me, fear the same people that make left turns from the right lane with their right turn signals on will be flying above our heads at high speeds. Not a very comforting though.
Good luck with flying Moped-type things!!!
Technology's a battle between companies producing more idiot-proof systems and nature producing bigger and better idiots
I sent this in a month ago. I don't really care though. This really is pretty cool, if its affordable enough, I think we're gonna see too many of these clouding the skys.
Hmm.. what about safety though? Is there some kind of parachute that comes out? Or do you just wear one and eject?
I'd hate to have the Win98 based software decide it needed to revalidate me in mid-flight, and shut it down....
Any good thing would have a a hardware interlock that would prevent the retinal scanner from interferring once it was started... Hmmm, so you might say, "Put it on the starter". Okay, well what if the engines quit in midair? You need to be able to disable the retinal scanner interference until you are safety on the ground.
Of course, the trick would be a design that would disable it should the transponder be fiddled with.
-- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"'
Other people have already questioned the feasibility of having large numbers of people doing this.
I think what has to be realised, is that we can do this, or some sort of flying car, but it will require at least some computer control.
One way is "roads", ie a certain height and position can only go a certain way. I think planes already work like this. The computer will need to stop people doing stupid things like going into another road. It would also make it easy enough to avoid massive training programs.
Shortly after, we'll get people building titanium roofs to withstand the crashes from these things. =)
> You are 10 times more likely to die on the
> road on a ten minute trip to the airport than
> a 12 hour flight to Europe
Only because there are a lot more cars on the road, and planes have trained pilots. I doubt that cars are inherently more dangerous than planes.
Man, Im glad I bought that case of Stinger missiles when I had the chance. The first time someone cuts me off in one of these things Im gonna let it fly!
-BW
Then why don't you just walk? Witj just a bit of training, you can easily do four miles per hour :-)
This sig under construction. Please check back later.
i know the feeling, i just hope that while walking down the street i don't get the urge to whip out a nail gun and kill one of those mfers if he cuts me off.
char *stupidsig = "this is my dumb sig";
That's a good point... and the work has to be done and signed off on by someone with FAA credentials. So you probably couldn't do even the most simple maintenance in your garage. You'd need to take it somewhere.
What I haven't seen has to do with the recoverability of this thing if it DOES have a malfunction. I've seen demonstrations on TV of how helicopters can be safely landed even if the engines fail, as long as they're above a certain altitude. Of course, the pilot has to have a certain level of skill to do this. People giving traffic reports from helicopters spend most of the time they're not looking at traffic looking for places to land if they have problems.
But perhaps this vehicle is light enough it could just be rigged with a big parachute. That would reduce the risk of death from a high altitude problem.
How can the very first comment on a posting be "redundant" as some moderator deemed this reply. It's not terribly insightful but come on!
An exoskeleton with motor-assisted limbs. Just like the book (didn't bother with the lame movie, because the only reason for going would be the jump suits).
Atlanta
Major accident today over the skys of Atlanta. Joey de Blowey was flying to work this fine smog filled morning when he sucked a large Canadian goose (yeah, got another Canadian, to bad it was a goose) into his fancy flying machine while cruising at 80mph. His emergency parachute immediatly deployed and he started to descend to earth when he happend to float down into the props of the poor fool who happened to be flying below him. Most of his body was mushed but he was able to be identified becouse his head flew in through the bedroom window of Mary Jane of Roswell. Americans for the Libertys of Geese are looking into the needless death of the fine bird.
(snort) Baloney. 'Personal helicopter' my starboard nacelle! I bet 99% of the people who would try learning to fly a personal helicopter would die in their first solo attempt.
I've pissed off a few NASCAR fans around my office by pointing out that when it came to driving a helo, Davey Allison turned out to be just another dead rotorhead wannabee. (He'd just gotten his license and bought his own bird, but he forgot the two cardinal rules of low-altitude flying and approaches: (1) Know where your tail rotor is in relation to everything it could possibly come in contact with, and (2) Pay attention to the surface winds.) If that sounds harsh, too fscking bad. Helicopters simply are not forgiving machines.
Fixed-wing aircraft require some practice, but helicopters demand religious fervor. Helo pilots are born, not made. (And only an Army or Air Force puke would call them "choppers."
"How many light bulbs does it take to change a person?" --BMcC-->
I remember a long joking discussion about what would happen to your "soul" in such a case...
if I wanted to fly, I tihnk I'd rather try a paraglider instead. sounds like a lot less stressing than these.
Obviously the "air scooter" isn't the biggest discovery these guys have made, that would have to be the plentiful supply of hallucinogens that they've apparently discovered.
This is NOT the Mohller (sp?) air car, which has been in the works for more than 30 years.
The air car is supposedly in actual FAA certification testing this year though, so it's about to become a reality.
Flying is expensive and requires a LOT more attention and training than most people are willing to put out.
Sweeeeeet! Just like the floating skateboard in Back to the Future II! :)
First post?
-brain
Certainly every reader would love get one of these things, but I seriously doubt it will ever catch on or become affordable.
Recall those advertisements in the 80's for the Amazing Air Car (send $19.95 for plans!).
Or what about the autogyro? Short takeoff, vertical landing, cheap to operate, fits in a garage, cheap and easy to fly.... and hardly anyone has one.
NASA throws tons of money at all kinds of things that never come to pass. I sincerely hope they get it working.
I saw this article on the CNN website 5 or 6 hours ago and tried to take a look at the company's web site and it looked like that it couldn't standup to the CNN Effect! So I'd bet it can't stand up to both that and the /. effect at the same time! (Then again I can't get through to /. half the time anyway) I'd bet that CNN gets more hits than /. but I would think that alot less people follow links out of CNN than they do out of /.
In anycase this air scooter thing looks very interesting if it ever works out.
My new SUV barely gets 20 MPG that will be impressive to see if and when this were to actually get off the ground (yes pun intended). Of course by the time this does exist, I really hope we still ain't using gas.....
Funny and I thought Perl == Paid employment recently located
I got excited about 15 years ago when this same guy claimed to be getting ready to start trials of a personal VTOL aircraft. That company cratered (I might even have the original brochures).
Forgive me if I take a "wait and see" approach to this one. :)
Long ago, SciFi writers, such as the late Robert Heinlein, used to write about a future in which we all had helicopters in our garages. Well, helicopters are here, and should any major auto maker choose to build them in quantity, they should be roughly as cheap as a luxury SUV. So, why don't most of us have a whirlybird to go to work in? The simple answer is that the skills required to fly a helicopter are a lot more difficult to acquire than the skills required to drive an automobile. (And, we have all seen how badly some people do with *those*!) I predict that this new innovation, though perhaps it will penetrate a bit further than the helicopter, will primarily be the toy of the rich, and the tool of law enforcement. Just like the helicopter.
Dog is my co-pilot.
Heard about this about 3 years ago when I attended UC Davis, this guy did some of his testing in Yolo County CA (next to Sacto County), back then, the speculated price was going to be a couple of hundred K, but I believe that was for a four seater. If it was priced at 50K, I would sell my car, everything I own, all my stock, and probably still not come up with enough, and it probably would be more than $50K (couldn't get into company web page, only CNN page.)
That thing looks cool. Maybe when it starts shipping, we'll all be too busy flying that all the AC's won't have enough time to try and get the first post
Unless every unit is centrally controlled or has on-board 3D radar coupled to the nav system (and would you really trust that anyway?), you can't just let people fly wherever they want at 80 MPH. I'm not a pilot, so maybe those of you who are can enlighten us on airspace regulations. Would there be a minimum altitude for "high" speed travel? Would different altitude ranges be reserved for different headings?
How about failure modes? Are emergency parachutes enough? Mars-lander-type external airbags? What about the traffic below you? Compressed helium and emergency balloons?
It seems like there are a lot of issues to be resolved apart from mechanical and economic feasibility. Does anyone know what the state-of-the-art thinking is here?
Does anybody know of (or have themselves) any mirrors of Soloteks website? The article hasn't been on Slashdot for very long..... CNN linked to it. As someone said, is this the CNN effect?
If you have one reply to this message with it! Thanks!
-----
Cool Linux Project of the Week
Coming soon.... October 1st!
i still remember the old 1992 'popular-science' article on the molner flying car that was supposed to be released in early 1999. i hear stuff on that only occationally. i am now forced to wonder if this idea will go the way of the flying car as well. it seems a good idea, expecially (imo) the extended training program, but, i see a lot of problems with it, not the least of which being cost. because of these problems, i am forced to ask a few questions:
how much would something like this cost?
would you have to be in contact with air-traffic control?
if so would you have to pay for air-traffic control services?
do i really want to spend $100000+ for the opportunity to get hit by a 747?
do i want to wait for the molner aircar so i can take a girl out on a date or just stap her to the backpack?
will it come equipped with a lightning rod?
am/fm/cassette?
do i want the possibility of crashing due to an inability to see during a rainstorm just so i can have the freedom of a flying motorcycle?
how much will my insurance go up?
will the have an option for hydrogen or electric power instead of petrol?
can i get it in electic purple?
will the guidance system (if any) run on linux?
i have many other questions but those constitute the major ones. in conclusion, i wonder if this will ever take off, and if so, will it be worth giving up my car?
Get rid of the seat, add a shock mounted cage with screens to prevent access to the blades. Imagine rush hour on these things? It had better be good at playing bumper cars or it's a sure no-go.
Go read their site. They discuss the fact that, although costs are at $1 million per car right now, their goal is to get a production run large enough that it'll drive the price down to $60,000 per car. This is their goal. The first batch will likely be more expensive than that, yes; but they're aiming for SUV prices.
Moller International of Davis California has a full blown Skycar It uses 8 Wankel Rotary Engines(? ) (ala Mazda RX-7) the M400 gets 15 MPG (like the RX-7 too) and top speed of 390 mph (uh, not like the RX-7). The M150 gets 45 MPG and a top speed of 375 MPH. Cnet did a write-up of it a few weeks ago (that I sent into /. but was never posted), and can be found on the Rotary News site
1.3L, 3 moving parts, 280 HP, no Turbos, wanna Race? RotaryNe
Gee, wow, another "personal flying machine that will allow commuters to cruise above traffic" piece. These creep up every few years, along with articles about household robots and home-control technology. Sheesh. The only thing more annoying than pieces like this are those smug "Technology fans are dreamy irresponsible fuggheads because they predicted all this neat stuff and all we got are A-Bombs and DDT! Back to the caves now!" things that clueless lefties churn out.
blah, that solotrek one looks like one of the characters from quake2 (you know the one with the two spinning fans raised slightly above his head)
picture humans flying around like that and youve got your solotrek .
as for the skycar, i think that looks like a hang-glider or something.
I don't have the URL handy, but you can buy low end helicopters in kit form for $50K. Naturally this doesn't count the cost of the time to assemble it, the time spent learning how to fly it, and maintainence. Nevertheless, the up front cost is definitely in SUV range.
Just another anal-retentive AC.
Slashdot recently carried a story on "air cars" (wonder how the initial trial turned out?) - travelling up to 300 miles on a tank of gas, up to about 450 miles per hour. Needless to say, I don't want Joe Blow piloting one of these. The most likely outcome of the popularity of mass air transit is that we'll see a lot more automation (computerization) of flight. i.e. you'll tell the scooter where you want to go; it'll automatically file for a flight plan and take you to the nearest parking area; you'll then walk the rest of the way.
I tend to agree with much of the sentiment generated here about the (non) validity of using these things for your everyday commute. However, assuming this flying gizmo actually makes it to production, there might be some very good/interesting uses for them:
[0] recreation, as has been previously mentioned
[1] wilderness search and rescue
[2] forest fire fighting
[3] military activities (obviously)
In fact, altho i'm no parachutist, if these things can hand 10,000 feet, I would guess that you could potentially forget about the parachute and just cruise out the back of a plane with one of these things. It might give you more choice of landing spots, and would give you mobility after you hit [sic] the ground.
I'd rather have a body around me... The same reason I drive a sports car instead of a motorcycle. Not saying that motorcycles are unsafe, but I feel safer in my RX-7. Uh, ok.
1.3L, 3 moving parts, 280 HP, no Turbos, wanna Race? RotaryNe
If these things take off (no pun intended), I think the skies are going to have serious problems. This would be the transportation equivalent of the internet, people just wouldn't know what to do with it....
But, think about all the safety peripherals that will have to be developed before these things will be released to the general public.
-- Moondog
these things are gonna be way to expensive, plus they run on gasoline which we all know we'll run out of soon. I think the gov should lay electrical cable in the center of all roads. Cars would be electric, when you got home you'd charge up your car in your garage, when you went to work you'd only have to use the battery for small hops to the highway, once you were on the highway you'd lower your electrical probe and jack into the highway electrical system. Your car would have to log in to the network, and depending on how long you were logged in you'd be charged for that. This would prevent the problem of having to deal with wimpy batteries so you could go on long trips, and electrical cars could be bigger than golfcarts. Of coarse there would be problems with kids wandering into the streets and licking the electrical lines ect. but overall this would prevent the problems of gasoline powerd cars, and you woulnd't have to worry about drunken folks trying to take out the white house, or buzzing your house late at night.
char *stupidsig = "this is my dumb sig";
Get your robot maids right here.
suddenly these things are everywhere, there's air jams, milage goes down, popularity wears off
I don't buy this prediction that once everybody has an air car, there will suddenly be "air jams". Remember that there is much much more space in the air (a 3D volume) than there is on the ground (a 2D surface, and you only get to use the paved parts of it). Sure, in the short run there will probably be heavy traffic around airports or other "approved flying areas", but once every car is fitted with its own GPS auto-nav system and can land and take off from anywhere, I don't think there will be any problems at all. Too much traffic at 2500 feet? Okay, fly at 2550!
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Because we are breathing, and water is more of a greenhouse gas than anything else. But Greens don't want to measure the water in the air, so they whine about carbon dioxide which sounds more dangerous.
There was also a recent report that scientists drilled through a virgin rock shield off Norway, where there should be no oil, and found oil. That rock did not form over any old surface rocks, so the oil must have come from deep in the crust.
Nevertheless, we can convert carbon waste into fuels with a little energy.
This was done back in the '50s. If you're in the bay area drop in the Heller(sp?) flight museum in Software Gulch along highway 101. They have an amazing array of air beaters paid for by the government including a small fan platform that you stand on and steer by leaning as sell as jet engine (without plane) that you bolt your self into (this has a glass captsule infront of the intake.
There are also a lot of other 1950s aeronautical hacks there such as an ultra light helicopter that folds up into a duffel bag and helicopter that have mini-jets on the end of the rotors. (reduces torque problems)
The web page for the Solo Trek XFV says it has been "... engineered to deliver 100% fail-safe efficient performance." Nothing is 100% fail-safe, and, so far, nothing is 100% efficient. If this first paragraph is any indication of their credibility, I'm not going to look for a dealer near me any time soon.
Their FAQ is full of inconsistencies. It doesn't list any pre-flight check for water in the fuel... a regular part of every pilot's pre-flight. They think that making everything "three times stronger" makes it "fail safe". They rely on "sensors" to tell the pilot of a problem (like, presumably, the sensor that tells if the pilot has not programmed in his/her correct weight; the question that springs to mind is "why program it in when there is a sensor that can detect it?). According to the FAQ, the SoloTrek "can be flown and landed in the event of a complete electrical system malfunction". So what fires its spark plugs and the "electronic timing" and fuel injection mentioned in the second point of the FAQ? And it doesn't take much imagination to consider the dramatic consequences of an automatic deployment of their ballistic parachute when one is, for instance, over water. (Or maybe they have a sensor for this).
While helicopters can, theoretically, "auto-rotate" to a safe landing in the event of power failure, they often fail to do so. Even in the hands of professional operators with thousands of hours of experience. And with deadly results. This ducted-fan device doesn't have anywhere close to the wing area of a helicopter blade. It seems to me that it would have the glide-angle of a brick.
Flying machines are terribly intolerant of incompetence; the one thing we seem to be overloaded with in this world lately. This is what is likely to make the operators of these things road-kill in the backyards of homes under their flight paths. Imagine the same mentality as the people who operate jet-skiis applied to this contraption and remember that you can at least stop a jet-ski and think it over for a while.
Flying to work isn't a matter of just strapping in and taking off. Remember all the times you drove to work in nice weather and drove home in almost zero-visibility? Visit the web site of this outfit and try to find an instrument cluster. Now try to imagine just how difficult it would be to fly one on instruments even if they had them. Finally, consider that the FAA doesn't just let you fly on instruments whenever you like... you need licenses and clearances and transponders and... well, you get the idea.
The FAA (and other agencies in other countries) have rules for aircraft based mostly on the fact that an amazing number of idiots think they can just climb in and take off. ("Hey! How hard can it be?") These rules apply most stringently in the very areas (congested cities) where these devices would be most useful. Rules like staying 1,000 feet above populated areas, like not flying in less than 3 miles of visibility (remember JFK Jr?), and staying clear - way clear - of clouds.
Their FAQ also seems to imply that anything over 100 feet above the ground (and how would this system know it was more than 100 feet "above the ground"?) is less safe... fully 400 feet below the minimum altitude the FAA requires over unpopulated areas.
I have flown airplanes and gliders (if you want to forget your problems, just try keeping a heavier-than-air vehicle aloft for a few hours with nothing more powerful than "up drafts") since 1970 and can remember seeing literally dozens of these ideas come and go, from the "air-car" of the 1950s to this. Some of them had prototypes and many of these flew. But the realities of flying rendered them impractical in the marketplace.
No one ever had to evacuate a city because the solar panels broke!
They could come out with a retro model vaguely like a vespa. Quadraphonia II....
This things in the hands of careless divers/pilots? Instead of a titanium roof, I think I'll rather build *underground* (and gain some energy efficiency, too ;).
One thing though... I had that idea 3 years ago when I first saw the replacement for a ski-lift, a great big fan you strap on your back. Of course that'd be fun to use on the way back down, probably add 30 mph to your impact
Patrick Barrett
Yebyen@adelphia.net
Restating the obvious since nineteen aught five.
And I bet they'll be hitting the market about the same time....
-=-=-=-=-
-=-=-=-=-
My mom's going to kick you in the face!
Do you hear that? It's the sound of a million :)
slashdot readers across the world all going
"pfft" at the same time
What did you eat today? http://www.atetoday.com/
I suspect that traffic would not immediately become a problem even if the vehicles were affordable for a few reasons. People wouldn't trust the things. They would be intimidated by the "rigorous training" required and the fact that you die if you screw up. (Even if this isn't true it is a misconception that solotrek will have to overcome for the device to become popular.)
.25 mile strip of flat dirt with no terminal at all.) Alaskan citizens log more flight hours on average than citizens in any other place in the world (though that is an old statistic.) Most of these small planes are VFR and can not fly when it's foggy, but that's about the only law that the bush pilots up here have to deal with (unless they are approaching an airport.)
As I don't expect that the air traffic would reach the volume it has on the ground I suspect that one easy way to avoid stupid collisions is to designate the vehicles "VFR only" or "visual flight regs only." If you can't see, say, more than a mile, (smog, clouds, fog, whatever) then you can't go up. I live in Alaska where small planes are very very common. In my home town, pop 307, there are usually at least 25 planes at the airport (a
As for safety, unless those things are heavier than they look I suspect that some of the safety tech developed for ultra-lights and small aircraft could be used. Nifty toys such as CO2 deployed parachutes have been in use in these areas for quite a while now. Make it a standard feature and hook it to the altimeter.
I sure as hell want one.
-Telemann
The way some people drive, I can't wait till the first pile-up comes crashing down into my backyard...
In fact, this will do wonders for security-- got a barbed wire fence around your property? Hah!
News for nerds indeed,
W
-------------------
-------------------
This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Hello? Does anyone remember a little company called Moller International?
;) hehee
First of all, this is far from like the skateboard in back to the future - this thing has 2 huge engines (described as hoola-hoop sized in the article I read), only goes 80, etc. This is dwarfed by what Moller has done; Moller is further along, cheaper, have better milage by far for how much they carry, much much faster, fly by wire, look cooler, many many times more safety features (some of which look really sweet)... in short, this is a really pathetic, backwards attempt at a personal vehicle.
If you don't know what I'm talking about when I mention Moller International, they're the people developing the Skycar which was mentioned here, what, a month ago? I think their web site is www.moller.com
I want one
- Rei
Wow, my car just broke down, but why bother fixing it when I can get one of these things? "Roads? Where we're going we won't need ...roads." And I imagine finding a parking space won't be such a big problem if I can just find some unlocked roof entrances... wow this is great...
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL
People shouldn't dismiss this stuff too quick because it seems too "sci-fi-ey." I wasn't around, but I hear that the whole concept of global, two way television communications (in color, no less) was pretty laughable in 1949 when Orwell published 1984, too. Ideas in sci-fi novels are becoming reality all the time (well, the rational ones anyways). I used videoconferencing not ten minutes ago. So deal. :)
:) Heh and bicycle couriering would suddenly go from a low paying, pretty cruddy job to a you-pay-us, well-let-you-fly type deal available only to playboys with money to burn.
I don't think anyone can really appreciate the uses for this until they've lived in a truly bustling metropolis. In New York it takes literally an hour to go two miles. Not to state the obvious, but that's how it is. I would guess that many a monied stockbrocker, lawyer, or accountant with a sense for adventure would jump at the chance to buy one. Oh yeah, and me. I'd buy one too.
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
blah, that solotrek one looks like one of the characters from quake2 (you know the one with the two spinning fans raised slightly above his head)
Icarus.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
From their site:
How much will it cost?
In limited production (500 units per year) the M400 Skycar will sell for a price comparable to that of a four passenger high performance helicopter or airplane, approximately $1 Million. As the volume of production increases substantially, its price can approach that of a luxury automobile.
What is taking so long?
Revolutionary ideas are not born overnight. We have been in development for 30 years and have several prototypes and concept vehicles flying. The progress of the M400 is on a very quick schedule when you review the man-hours and dollars expended. Only $100 Million has been spent in R & D at Moller International, compare this to the $1.2 Billion required for the gearbox design on the Bell-Boeing V22 Osprey.
Oh! only 100 million. Shit I thought it was more that had to be recovered in R&D
Remeber, this has to come out of the profit margin so let's see;
500 per year, costs are $1 million each
let's say...
50,000 per year, cost would be $60,000 each as you say. Let's see now, scale the plant up from 500 to 50,000/year, suddenly these things are everywhere, there's air jams, milage goes down, popularity wears off, what ever.
There is no way you can build a million dollar vehicle (to begin with) for less than 10% on a mass scale
Dan. -- So what if it's spelt wrong, nobody's perfect
Next up: Disney will be suing these folks for copyright infringement. I want a jet pack. Just imagine: when your boss is about to give you a big, long, and tedious project, you can literally 'jet' out of harms way. The only problem is though, you'd have to watch out for the ceiling tiles, and then carry a fire extinguisher around with you. Even if you didn't start a fire, you could taunt all your evil Catbert© hired co-workers. :)
da w00t. mtfnpy?
In the inevitable future when everyone has one of these and those pesky groups of kids/drunks/peeping toms (pick one or more) keep hovering over your house, what are you to do?
/. holds the answer - build the largest roof mounted HERF Gun your house will hold, and watch them drop like flies.
Happily,
As for me, I have a small airport right by where I work - should make for an exciting trip to work every day dodging the private jets!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The other problem with helicopters, and with any air vehicle, is it takes a tremondous amount of time to keep it tuned up and working properly. You don't exactly want a malfunction at 5,000 ft, do you?
Helicopters cost thousands of dollars just in spare parts to be kept up. Fuel is extremely expensive, and you need to hire mechanics to check it out after so many flights, etc. Sure, newer military helis don't need as much time for repairing, but they cost around $6.5 million a pop. Spendy little suckers
Well... The retinal scanning equipment alone should put it well out of reach of most people... Another idea here(possibly cheaper) would be the new "Smart Gun" or whatever technology that can verify the hand of the owner.
I won't even come back on the fact that we've all seen the "Incredible flying car/bicycle/moto/horse/slashdot", (only one of those actually fly!:) ).
Anyway, there is something that will always keep us, the mere money impaired mortals, on the ground. And that is the running/maintenance costs.
Somebody befor mentioned that helicopters could now be manufactured in large numbers and if that happened they wouldn't cost that much. Well let's just remember that maintnance cost on those babies are incredible. For one thing the security checks are a lot more demanding on somthing that is going to fly over your head, than on cars for example. If your car breaks down, you can simply pull it on the side of the road, but if you're actually flying, well, it just hurts a tiny wee bit more when you finaly hit the side of the road.
Just remember that a chopper goes through a complete engin check every 30'000 flight hours, and on a turbine engin the *simple* check can cost you all the way up to 15k.
So to make it short, Yhea sure it could be a fine leisure/sport, like parasailing, hanglinding, etc.. but get real, it's just not for every day commute.
Murphy(c)
While most people seem to be a bit skeptical Personal Aircraft, I'm a believer, or rather, I wan't to believe.
Energy is energy is energy. Gas is just solar energy that was collected millions of years ago (plants absorb sunlight, dinos eat plants, dinos eat each other, everything dies and gooifies). One of gas' advantages is that it is cheap and portable. If _economically_ available supplies run too low, then solar/nuclear energy (fussion in the sun or fission/fussion on Earth - what's the big diff?) could be converted into a form of energy that you might call "gas" or "gasoline" even though it may have to be liquid to be just as useful. Check out the forums at www.junkscience.com for interesting fossil fuel debates.