'Flying Saucers' to Go On Sale Soon

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."

I'm already dead

from holding my breath

Re:I'm already dead

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.

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.

Re:I'm already dead

Well, never know. Perhaps he finally will sell one, its bound to happen someday.. Perhaps we will finally have HURD released as well.. Then world peace will soon to follow.... and free iPhones will fall out of the sky, off the backs of flying pigs!

Moller is the ultimate carny

I swear this guy puts P.T. Barnum to shame.

"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.

I had one

I had a flying saucer once, but when it landed it broke into a thousand shards.

Re:I had one

I'd love to hear the morning traffic report if more than three of these get sold into one metro area. It ain't just fender-benders anymore, folks. The accidents are bound to be specatcular.

Re:I had one

This is my biggest fear about flying cars. Look at the mechanical state of the cars that the average person drives. It's terrible. But it doesn't bother us, because mostly when their car breaks down (engine dies, or whatever), they can make it to the side of the road, or if worse comes to worse, they stop in the middle of traffic, and we go around them. They could even put it in neutral and push it off the road. What happens when a flying vehicle breaks down. Well, it falls. Sure some planes have 2 engines, and can continue flying if one shuts off, but knowing Joe Sixpack, he'd drive it around for months with only 1 engine.

Back to the future 2!!

Strange thing is, the other day I was thinking about Back to the Future 2, how all those years ago the writers thought we might all have flying cars in 2015, and how off the mark they were. Looks like they were right after all!

Re:Back to the future 2!!

Don't be fooled. This Moller person pops up every year on Slashdot and other websites touting his machine, with the same 10 second clips of a "flying car". Add me to the list of people who will "Believe it when I see it".

I post this because I remember this exact same person being promoted here on slashdot at least 3 years ago.

Re:Back to the future 2!!

Moller has been saying something to the effect of "in five years" for the last fourty years. Every story on this guy, his project and the ideal that it supposedly represents bugs me. This BBC story digs up the most dirt that I've seen from this kind of story so far, and that's just "it's not yet approved by the FAA". That's because it probably will never be approved. As far as I'm concerned, stories like this only aid this scammer. The SEC had sued Moller - the same SEC that's been on their duffs over SCO's pump and dump scheme, if that gives you any indication of how bad it is.

Re:Back to the future 2!!

It won't be approved because the design is idiotic. It is unstable (hence the tethered demos!), cannot autorotate or glide, and even with adaptive flight controls would be hard put to withstand the loss of an engine due to their location.

Ever wonder why investors with aviation knowledge and money to burn DON'T fund him?

This fellow isn't another Igor Sikorsky.

Re:Back to the future 2!!

Hey, we just might get our flying cars. But they won't be coming from this guy. (See below for the bazillion posts of SCAM SCAM SCAM - this guy's been at it for years.

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!

Re:The War on Terror

instead of patrolling a two-dimentional line it has to patrol a 3d surface

You seem to have a little problem there with your dimensions.

Re:Back to the future 2!!

The MIT "folding wings" car would solve all these problems:

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.

at least 20 years old

I saw this and previous veriations on this way back in 1987 on a tech show called Beyond 2000. 20 years later and still a prototype.

Re:at least 20 years old

I saw this and previous veriations on this way back in 1987 on a tech show called Beyond 2000. 20 years later and still a prototype.

I remember it. Was it not called the merlin then? I remember reading about it in some popsci rag in 1989 or so. My dad worked at a research lab in fuels and combustion in those days and his colleagues didn't believe the power to weight ratio claims for the engines. I so wanted to believe though.

Re:at least 20 years old

his colleagues didn't believe the power to weight ratio claims for the engines.

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! :)

With Moller...

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.

The last time he was in the headlines was a few years ago. The SkyCar was going to go on sale soon. What the press release and news articles didn't say was that it was *the* one and only prototype SkyCar that was going to go on sale, in the Nieman Marcaus catalog. This guy comes out with a press release every few years to raise cash for toys. Last time I looked at his web page he was also selling some kind of diet supplement pills, right on the same page with the SkyCar info! Scam scam scam scam scammity-scam scammity-scam! Can I have his scam? I like scam!

Re:With Moller...

I'd say your skepticism is warranted..

I have somewhere in a stack of papers a popular mechanics article from 1986 (yes, 21 years ago), that claims the Moller Skycar will be out in a few years and listing those exact specs. I'm all out of skepticism, all I have left is disbelief.

more feasible??

I think it [the skycar] looks a lot more feasable than other flying cars.

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.

Re:With Moller...

I wondered back in the 80s if he was for real or a scam artist but I have no doubt he's for real. He has spent a fortune of his own money and there has been a lot of development. The car has two major problems. First it's nearly impossible to do what he's trying but it looks like he finally has a nearly functional one so scam is a mighty strong word. The second issue is the odds are near zero of the FAA approving them anytime in the near future. They can't even get the insurance company to allow them to test it without the tether. From what I gather he's 95% there having a working prototype but they are on the razor edge of loosing it all. Releasing the saucer version was a desperate act to keep the company a float and legitimate. I have serious doubts of the skycar ever being approved for the average citizen. That doesn't make Moller a scam artist it makes him a dreamer. Sadly he may be shooting himself in the foot. All it takes is one moron doing something stupid in one of the saucers and the lawyers will eat his company for lunch. "Gee you didn't specially tell me flying a surface effect vehicle off a clift was a bad idea, give me money." Really it's a hovercraft that can fly 10' instead of 6". Cool but the potential for disaster is high. My fear would be wind flipping one. 10' is still enough head first to kill you.

Very simple solution to FAA approval

Do it as an experimental. Sell kits that have 45% of the work finished, and detailed instructions, and let the new owner finish it, register it as an experimental, and go. The FAA still has to issue an airworthiness certificate, but the threshold for getting an AC is far, far lower than for getting FAA type approval. Plus people feel like they're getting a deal, so they're more likely to buy.

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.

Why aren't these stories ever critical?

The Skycar has been in the works for decades with barely anything to show for it. There are too many stories that just talk about the positive future that it supposedly represents when it's been a boondoggle so far. There was even action against Moller by the SEC.

Skycar

Moller's been pushing this nonsense since his first snowmobile engine modifications in the 70's. He has been collecting investment money for decades promising VTOL vehicles to the masses. There's a whole sky full of problems with this. First, getting into the sky is a series of tests and checks and licenses here in the US because, essentially, many people don't really want every Tom Dick and Harry flying over our heads. The skies are a-crowded already, from a management point of view.

  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.

Infrastructure? Safety? Economy?

The only way I could see this working is if they work out a few infrastructure challenges. For starters, the article mentions that you won't be able to fly one over 10 feet without a pilot's license. 10 Feet won't get you over some pickups, much less off the highways. Next, how do you work out right of way, parking and so on. These are challenges that will be difficult to overcome even IF flying cars were readily available.

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

What good is hovering 10ft above the ground, except for fun. How do you get from home to work in this thing?

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..

While I agree with all the skeptics, having read about this same damn car years ago, some of the skepticism is unfounded.

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...

I really like the look of the Entecho Flying Saucer [entecho.com.au] looks nice and apparently is going to retail for only 30,000 AUD I heard an interview with one of the designers who claims it will be on sale to the public with in 3 years. Unfortunately it will be limited to climb to 1.8 meters off the ground for safety reasons and only seats one person how ever the plus side to this is there is a good chance it will become a registered road worthy vehicle in Australia. Perfect for cruising over the tough corrugated roads we have here in Australia.

Dupe!

Well, joking. http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/01/014821 0 [slashdot.org] had an article about the first skycar being for sale, but the rebuttals for their technology are to be found in the comments, http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=163945&cid=136 93215 [slashdot.org] and http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=163945&cid=136 92203 [slashdot.org] for example (but the others make a good read as well).

Never going to happen

Not because of any engineering difficulties, although I'm sure there's no shortage of those. Engineering difficulties can and will always be overcome. Someone will develop a better fuel, a lighter/stronger material, a more elegant design. The real reason these will never happen is because there is no way any government will ever let their citizens have the freedom of the 3rd dimension. The Solotrek looked very promising until an accident with a safety tether caused a crash (note, not a failure on the part of the machine!). Paranoiacs wishing to generate conspiracy theories about this incident are of course welcome to do so.

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."