Slashdot Log In
'Flying Saucers' to Go On Sale Soon
Posted by
CowboyNeal
on Thu Aug 30, 2007 11:42 PM
from the meet-george-jetson dept.
from the meet-george-jetson dept.
gihan_ripper writes "Perhaps the ultimate nerd acquisition, the flying car, is to go on sale in a few months. Speaking to the BBC, the inventor Dr Paul Moller described his creation, dubbed the Flying Saucer, as a VTOL aircraft designed to hover at 10 ft. above the ground. The flying saucer has eight engines and is expected to sell for $90,000. Dr Moller expects to produce a successor within six years, a 'Skycar' capable of a climb rate of 6000 ft./min. and an airspeed of 400 mph."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
I'm already dead (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I'm already dead (Score:5, Insightful)
To put this in perspective, an Apache Longbow with 2400HP and empty except for fuel, at sea level, *might* see 4000 ft/min; and this thing is designed for operation in the vertical. From a power to weight ratio, Moller has nothin even close to what an Apache can produce. As usual, he's full of BS. Heck, most light GA, piston aircraft are lucky to see 1000ft/min, especially once you get a couple thousand feet above sea level. Granted, most light GA doesn't have vertical thrust but my point is, he is simply not working in reality unless he knows about some super secret advancements in engine technology.
from holding my breath
Agreed. Make room because you're about to have a room full of dead bodies from everyone else holding their breath.
Parent
Don't forget 400mph (Score:3, Informative)
Now whether he can actually go 400 mph
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It is impossible for him to see 6000fpm off of ducted fan picton engines. The power to weight ratio simply does not exist for him to get out of ground effect let alone climb at 6000fpm. I'm sorry, but the en
Re:I'm already dead (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Moller is the ultimate carny (Score:5, Informative)
"Dr." Paul Moller has been promising to sell his skycar "in a few years" since the 70's. When I first saw something about his concept (in a late-70's Pop Sci, as I recall) it looked pretty interesting. At the time (almost 30 years ago) Moller was promising these "soon." But as time has gone by it's become clearer and clearer that the only thing that Moller is selling is old-fashioned snake-oil and the only folks he's selling to are the gullible.
If you look at what he's offering for sale "soon" you'll see that it's not the long-promised skycar, it's a flying saucer type craft that looks like something out of a Mario Party minigame. Seriously, it looks like four weed-whacker engines in a fiberglass shell molded from an old Texaco sign.
Parent
I had one (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:I had one (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Joe Sixpack isn't an Aviation Maintenance Technician or a pilot. Joe Sixpack does not need to be making low-level flights over residential areas.
The appropriate response would be to restrict all air traffic to officially designated airports/heliports and kill this idiocy off (if someone ever builds a viable machine). Requiring flying cars to p
Re:I had one (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Back to the future 2!! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Back to the future 2!! (Score:5, Interesting)
I post this because I remember this exact same person being promoted here on slashdot at least 3 years ago.
Parent
Re:Back to the future 2!! (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Back to the future 2!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Ever wonder why investors with aviation knowledge and money to burn DON'T fund him?
This fellow isn't another Igor Sikorsky.
Parent
Re:Back to the future 2!! (Score:5, Informative)
But there is a ray of light on the horizon, in the form of a real, honest-to-gosh flying car [com.com].
As a private pilot, I'm so hoping so hoping so hoping that this one actually works out! Light plane aviation has a number of problems:
1) Getting from your house to the plane is a hassle - the plane's at an airport, you have to park your car, leaving your car for very long can be expensive, you need a ride in a cab, etc.
2) Weather is a BIATCH. You plan a flight a week in advance, and then you get thunderstorms hitting right where you wanted to land. Small planes don't do nearly as well as the big jets in bad weather.
3) Hassle at the other end: Once you've landed, you're more or less stuck without a rental car. And in many smaller airports, that's a pain. Rental car agencies will deliver a rental car, but that doesn't make much sense when the nearest rental is 45 minutes away.
4) Parking - who wants to pay hundreds of dollars a month for what amounts to a garage that happens to be next to the tarmac at the airport?
The MIT "folding wings" car would solve all these problems:
1) Drive it to the airport.
2) If the weather gets too bad to fly, land at the nearest airport and drive the rest of the way.
3) Once you've landed, you fold wings and drive to your destination on surface streets.
4) At home, you park it in your garage!
All this for about $100,000?!?!?! Hell yes I'd buy one!
Parent
Re:Back to the future 2!! (Score:5, Insightful)
The operating regimes are too different to make a good, semi-efficient, cross vehicle. Take a standard Cessna 172. About 750kg. Thats about the same as the SmartCar. Now bolt on foldable wings and other control surfaces, the supporting structure needed to hold all that, extra instrumentation...and you've added 500kg to that SmartCar.
Or attack it the other way. How much would a 172 weigh if it needed 5mph bumpers, door beams, and a suspension/frame strong enough to handle a pothole at 60mph? Add in the drive mechanism to get power to the wheels. Oh, and the (strong/foolproof!)linkage needed for the foldable wings. It would end up a much larger aircraft. Where do you put those wings so they don't block the view when on the ground? Only place I can think of is on the roof.
The aircraft spends 99% of its operating life in the smooth, pothole-free, air. There is no need to haul around a useless heavy frame and suspension. A car spends ALL of its operating life on the very uneven ground. With all the bumps and dings that go with that. And no need to haul around unneeded flight control surfaces.
Can it be done? Sure. Can it be done as more than a toy? Not anytime soon.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The War on Terror (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
at least 20 years old (Score:5, Informative)
Re:at least 20 years old (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:at least 20 years old (Score:5, Interesting)
That's really what was killing him. His initial claims were impressive, but it was easy to see from his hover tests that he wasn't getting quite the power originally promised. In fact, he had to abandon the thrust redirection slats he originally promised, and moved to rotating nacelle design. That, of course, had a direct impact on the stability of the vehicle's hover capabilities.
I remember watching the hover test videos for the first time. Over the loud whine of the engines as they struggled to keep the craft aloft, I kept thinking "those props don't have enough power". Supposedly he recently upgraded the engines on the craft, so we'll see how that goes.
All in all, it's going to be a fancy airplane. You'll still need a pilot's license and you'll still need much of the same clearance as a plane needs. I want to believe that it will be an aircraft that "anyone" can fly, but my gut says it will be a deathtrap for any untrained pilots that dare to attempt to fly the contraption.
Still, best of luck to Mr. Moller. It's great to see a "done" model of this finally arrive!
Parent
With Moller... (Score:5, Informative)
I'll believe it when I can actually buy one. Much as I'd like a flying car, his always seem to be "Real Soon Now(TM)" AFAIK, Moller has never actually had anything for sale. Downside(R) lists his company as a scam [downside.com] because it has been a few years from production for 30 years. There have also been SEC complaints [sec.gov] for "fraudulent, unregistered offering and the filing of a fraudulent Form 10-SB by Moller International, Inc. ("MI" or "the company"), a California company engaged in the development of a personal aircraft known as "the Skycar.""
I'd like to be wrong, but I sure won't be putting down any money just yet.
Yeah, it is a scam. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Well, he did start SuperTrapp Industries. They are still in business, Moller sold off that subsidiary in 1988. He has an impressive resume, but I agree, I've been watching him try to develop the flying car for at least a couple of decades now.
Re:With Moller... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Very simple solution to FAA approval (Score:4, Interesting)
I think the problem is: where do you go to get instruction? You're not legally allowed to fly these things without a pilot certificate coz they weigh too much to fit into ultralight categories, and more critically, they're a different type of certificate. To fly a Moeller or the like, you need instruction in 'powered lift' not 'fixed wing' or 'helicopter' or even 'autogyro' -- and there are precisely two 'powered lift' vehicles in existence, the Moeller and the Osprey V-22. Nobody has flown a Moeller, and the only Ospreys are being flown by US military and Boeing/Vertol research/design people. There are no instructors and as such there is no way to get instruction, so the market for an aircraft you're not legally allowed to fly is pretty slim. Moeller has to get a dozen of these things built and four dozen certified flight instructors trained up -- when nobody has any idea of what constitutes a certified flight instructor for powered lift -- before there will be a market for his machines. IF they ever actually work.
Parent
Re:With Moller... (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You roll a 18, you disbelieve the illusion.
more feasible?? (Score:4, Funny)
That's a bit like saying the Star Trek Enterprise's warp engines look a lot more feasible than other types of faster-than-light travel like those totally unbelievable Hyperdrives from Star Wars.
Parent
Why aren't these stories ever critical? (Score:5, Informative)
hmm (Score:2, Insightful)
Skycar (Score:5, Interesting)
Second, while the technology may be sound and there were doubters to the helicopter and "aeroplane" alike, this design seems a bit more like rocketry than either of the prior two. Ducted or directed fan technology is hugely inefficient compared to wing technology. Coolness aside, there's something of an "experimental" quality of these machines that they cannot seem to shake. If I'm watching YouTube videos of the Moller employees coming and going in these contraptions, then perhaps my doubts will be alleviated, but until then, I keep picturing a screwball in an oversized frisbee darting over the park and eventually plowing into the trees.
Re: (Score:2)
For a VFR pilot's ticket, you need around 40 hrs of training. In most states, you're supposed to have 50+ hrs of behind the wheel time under a permit before you get your car license. If the flying cars are sufficiently automated, training requirements may also be relaxed if safety can be proven.
-b.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Is flying impossibly difficult to learn? No. But I've been driving cars (on private roads) since I was nine years old, motorcycles since I was 11. An airplane, especially for a "casual" flyer, is exponentially more complex to own, operate, and maintain, and the sky i
Re: (Score:2)
AFAIK, the fans swivel and are only directed vertically at takeoff. During flight, they're positioned horizontally and the vehicle relies on two sets of wings to stay aloft.
-b.
About time. (Score:2)
My understanding is that it is relatively good on fuel too. They were talking about it on an Art Bell program years ago when Art actually was on it. I guess fully loaded it get better fuel economy per passenger the
Not ready for our roads (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I could imagine something like East/West traffic travels on the ground while the North/South traffic travels in the air. This could eliminate traffic lights, stop signs, the works! However, it does add a new dimension to making a right turn.
Re: (Score:2)
Infrastructure? Safety? Economy? (Score:5, Interesting)
Next is safety. While cars have been pretty focused on protecting their occupants, this takes that to a whole new dimension. A stall is no longer just an inconvenience, but a high probability that you are going to die. What about the people on the ground that you crash into? How many car wrecks are there in an average size city. Now imaging that for each of these wrecks, you have a heavy, flammable piece of metal, glass and plastic falling to the ground! It would seem to me that the only way to make these things remotely safe would be to equip them not only with a parachute, but with airbags on the outside to protect those that are going to be in their homes beneath these things!
Economy. With all the current focus on global warming, dwindling oil supplies, wars in the middle east etc, I don't see how flying cars will help alleviate any of these problems. As a matter of fact, I see the exact opposite happening! Could you imagine what would happen to the demand for energy if half the auto's on the road were not flying over it!
Of course, these issues are just a few issues that my ignorant-ass can come up with in a few minutes. I'm sure that there are problems that real life engineers haven't even dreamed of yet! So I'm afraid that building a flying car will be the easy part.
Someone enlighten me please (Score:3, Insightful)
Surely you can't fly over people's backyards so you'll have to follow the roads. 10ft is too low to get you over trucks so you won't be able to fly over the traffic easily, so you'll just have to follow the traffic like in a car except for the temptation to skip over low cars and cut across corners etc. while avoiding the power lines, overpasses etc.
No way will this thing ever be legal unless the whole infrastructure and traffic laws are changed to accommodate which ain't gonna happen either. So, what good is it?
History repeats itself.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Moller may never produce a 'flying car', but someone will eventually.
When that flying car hits the market, it will likely be little different than when the first automobiles we're being sold. There were no parking spots in front of the general store, only places to tie up your horse. As more of these are sold, more spots to park them will become available. More gasoline/diesel stations will accommodate them as well. It will be slow. There won't be any real regulation of them for a while, but that won't stop people from using them. And these will likely be flying deathtraps for a while. So was the car for the first two decades of it's life. Same for the train when we started laying tracks everywhere we could find a place for them but couldn't design brakes worth a shit. As dangerous as these flying cars may be, people will fly them.
If I could afford one, I would buy it to fly it to work everyday. It would be easy for me; I'd just follow the river. The first automobiles were not utilities, they were novelties, just like the flying car will be when someone eventually manages to start selling them.
Aero
I much prefer... (Score:3, Interesting)
Dupe! (Score:4, Informative)
Never going to happen (Score:3, Interesting)
Go read Bob Shaw's 'Vertigo' for some idea of what happens to a society where personal human flight is commonplace. Borders become meaningless, passports doubly so. Criminals are going to love these things - how do you set up a roadblock in the sky? And also, no matter how carefully you build the vehicle to be safe, and easy to pilot, the human element will always be a factor.
"People who were in a hurry tended to switch off their lights to avoid detection and fly straight to where they were going, regardless of the air corridors. The chances of colliding with another illegal traveller were vanishingly small, they told themselves, but it was not only occasional salesmen late for appointments who flew wild. There were the drunks and the druggies, the antisocial, the careless, the suicidal, the thrill-seekers, the criminal - a whole spectrum of types who were unready for the responsibilities of personal flight, in whose hands a counter-gravity harness could become an instrument of death."
Re: (Score:2)
-b.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It's not just you. It's been everyone who's paid attention to this nut for the past 30 years.
I'd like to see him succeed. He wore out what little credibility he ever had in the 70s. Fancy computers can now make aerodymanically-unstable aerofoils "fly", but they can't solve the problem of power output. The funky fiberglass model shown today is the same fucking thing he's shown since the 80s.
The only reason he's still in business