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
"A collection of 10,000 nuts and bolts trying desparately to get away from one another."
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
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"
---------------------------
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...
Or not... what do I know?
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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!
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
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
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)