'Flying Saucers' to Go On Sale Soon 327
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 (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
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)
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.
I had one (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:I had one (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
vs
SG-1 after they ran out of funding and had to hire orcs. GOGO!
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep - I'll believe it when I see it.
Re:Back to the future 2!! (Score:4, Informative)
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.
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!
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The War on Terror (Score:4, Funny)
There won't be flying cars (Score:2)
If they ever become fully computer controlled then maybe.
at least 20 years old (Score:5, Informative)
Re:at least 20 years old (Score:5, Interesting)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
All in all it will be a very fancy fuel bill is probably a more accurate description.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
from TFA:
By the time the Skycar goes into production - probably in about six years time - it will be capable of climbing 6,000ft a minute and travelling at up to 400 miles an hour.
I'd say your skepticism is warranted.
Re:With Moller... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You roll a 18, you disbelieve the illusion.
Re: (Score:2)
The onboard PC on the flying car will also come with DukeNukem 4 installed for traffic jam entertainment.
pchan was right, I read the article, but unlike him I do not have it archived in any form other than my memory....which reminds me...Hey you kids!!!Get off of my lawn!!!!
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
C'mon, cut the guy some slack... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:With Moller... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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:2)
That crane in the background proves it's safety to me. 1 year away from "fly saucers everywhere" and the owner of the company won't take it out for a demo ride? S C A M
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not quite seeing the wings working at speeds under WayWayFast. Realize that the highest investigation of efficiency, maneuverability and speed has gone into combat aircraft, and I simply don't see the Moller Skycar turning in any direction in a small radius. Think of modern fighter jets, where they need control surfaces to pull themselves around turns. Moller needs to push with fans instead.
Even the V-22 Osprey [wikipedia.org] had a long development time, but in the end did not deviate far from either heli o
Skycar: Glide ratio of a rock (Score:2)
While the sky car could use a rocket launched parachute like those used by some paraglider pilots, those don't help unless you have some altitude for it to deploy and decelerate your fall. Moller has been sucking up venture capitol for decades but he is to flying cars as Lyndon Lar
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
Re: (Score:2)
Not ready for our roads (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
add in a few more degrees of freedom, dude. Like a sphere's worth of lights.
Re: (Score:2)
That aside, if by some breakthrough of physics or whatever, flying cars DO become viable - this is an example of a situation where augmented reality has a chance to shine. Imagine sitting in your personal aircraft, in a busy sky, with all the craft around you showing their intended flight
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)
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking something more along the lines of:
Left Turn, 20 Feet
Right Turn Ground level
North/South 30 Feet
East/West 10 Feet.
Who knows. I don't think it's going to be anything we have to worry about for years. Besides, where are you going to turn
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Until we have flying buildings, we don't need flying cars to get where we are going.
I would however pay to watch races. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This thing is the antithesis of a street sweeper.
WRONG PICTURE! (Score:2, Informative)
Does it come with... (Score:2)
...hot alien babes?
...a cup holder?
...a flying cup?
...tea?
...an application for a Darwin award?
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Why not?
10ft is too low to get you over trucks
But you can maneuver around them.
And perhaps you could argue that you fly at 10 ft, and occasionally move up to 20-30ft to avoid traffic...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It really strikes me odd that people in the 21st century seek new ways to get from home to work when in the majority of cases (at least in the IT) they can simply get the work to their home. Even heard of telework?
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
Re: (Score:2)
Will people be allowed to fly them? If you're not on or near a road, you're safe from drunken teens in mechanically unsound cars crashing into you. The same cannot be said with flying cars.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the aviation world's "Duke Nukem Forever" (Score:2)
Flying car in three easy steps (Score:2)
Step one: permanently affix chair to car. Any car will do.
Step two: place conspicuously in Ballmer's office just before an Apple media event.
Step three: there is no step three!
In other news... (Score:2, Interesting)
Kevin Smith says Its about time! (Score:2)
The russians are working on one too (Score:2)
wrong pix (Score:2)
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)
A dual-mode car would be the hot
Re: (Score:2)
Even assuming he can achieve this, it would still get much worse mileage on a short hop where it never goes above 1000 ft. Why would the oil companies be opposed to this?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Hint: Go to the fair and give them a dollar...You too can ride in the SKYCAR!
Re: (Score:2)
Sure they could -- braking can be accomplished by some combination of thrust reversal and speed brakes (basically panels that swing out into the wind). If the craft slows enough to lose lift from the wings or lifting body, the engines should automatically swivel to a "hover" regime.
Actually, the bigger problem is: how many drivers run out of gas on the road today due to inattention? Running out in the air is a larger problem!
-b.
Re: (Score:2)
Breaks?
Thrust reversal would reverse the engines or fanblades - not quite possible without a gear and clutch system and would take quite a bit of wear (and time) to activate.
Airbrakes akin to a reusable parachute only work related to surface area and strength. Not much room on these little things to hide a panel to slow from a 100mph smooth machine.
Most likely, the machine would try to brake by tilting backwards and splitting the downward thrust with backward. However, this means s
Re: (Score:2)
Sure they do. We call them walls.
Supplimental life insurance not included (Score:2)
B sure 2 have a helicopter ready to rescue the pilot after he crashes.