Dude, where's my flying car?

[Ravenwing]

oh, but those cars may be able to drive by themselves on autopilot with AI computers.

Yeah, an AI autopilot car would be as cool as aflying car. It'd still be a road vehicle, but it would be much safer and more efficient probably to have a computer drive as opposed to a human. Unfortunately we dont have that yet either.

i heard tell of something like it undergoing testing, it identifies oad dangers, maps out the path your taking and gives directions. it can auto brake and all sorts of stuff, if they could just make it do the actual driving wed be set

[aerius]

One of these days, hopfully in my lifetime, a flying car will be practical. Because thsi shit we have no wis just plain sad. Doesnt anyone else wonder why technologically a modern sports car is only more advanced than a Model T becaus eit has onboard navigation and inbuilt DVD players?

Bullshit. The differences between a modern car and a Model T are just as great as the differences between an F-22 fighter and the Wright Flyer. Do you have any fucking understanding of the engineering and technology that goes into a modern car? You can't build a modern car with 1970's technology, nevermind early 20th century tech. Hell, a lot of the metal alloys used in cars didn't even exist back then. I somehow doubt they had 6061 T6 aluminum in the 1920's, nevermind 6Al/4V titanium for the connecting rods in some modern engines.

[Tsyroc]

Yes, lets make streets that'll short out most electronic devices...

If it'll take out cell phones I'm all for it.

[Gandalf]

How would this electromagnet idea affect regular metal parts, like my belt or watch?

Would they be attracted/repulsed by the road?

[Andrew J.]

Flying cars, bah! Who cares about them? I want personal jetpacks, dammit!

[General Zod]

One of these days, hopfully in my lifetime, a flying car will be practical. Because thsi shit we have no wis just plain sad. Doesnt anyone else wonder why technologically a modern sports car is only more advanced than a Model T becaus eit has onboard navigation and inbuilt DVD players?

a simple google search would help cease your wondering. Many of the cars today are made using advanced composite materials, most of which would have been impossible to make 40 years ago. braking technology often incorporates microchips for precision stopping, as does cruise control, airbags, power windows, and a great many other things. you simply would not be able to make modern vehicles using 1970s technology.

[Comosicus]

No, seriously, where the fuck is my flying car

Here

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Cool. Your own Harrier.

Put some rockets or missiles, some machine-guns and voila.

[StarshipTitanic]

oh, but those cars may be able to drive by themselves on autopilot with AI computers.

Yeah, an AI autopilot car would be as cool as aflying car. It'd still be a road vehicle, but it would be much safer and more efficient probably to have a computer drive as opposed to a human. Unfortunately we dont have that yet either.

Yes, lets have one malfunctioning car cause a 100-car pile-up on a freeway...

[Sea Skimmer]

Flying cars would be cool,but i don`t think they would ever fly,especialy if some morons fly it while drunk,a lot of building will need perpetual maintenance after the accidents.

Just imagine the car bombing possibilities, no longer will those pesky walls and concert barriers get in the way of the blast, every attack would be literally a cruise missile strike.

[Jadeite]

This is rather creepy. In the Business section of todays newspaper was an article about that Moller guy.

[Broomstick]

No, seriously, where the fuck is my flying car? When i was little, i used to talk to my brother about the 'future', and we both thought that by the 21st century surely they would have flying cars. You know, like speeders in SW.

Well...where the fuck are they!?

Look up. Many companies make flying vehicles for personal ownership. Companies such as Cessna, Piper, Mooney, Van's, Scaled Composites, Robinson, etc.

Hampered by those pesky economic and technological limitations

Not to mention gravity can really get you down... physics is such a drag...

Without side skirts your building a helicopter, those cost millions and guzzle fuel.

Yes, they guzzle fuel, but they don't cost millions. A brand new Robinson R-22 is under $200,000. Let's not get carried away here.

I will also point out that if your car throws a rod or the transmission dies your chances of survival are much higher on the road than if you have engine failure or, worse yet, rotorhub failure in a helicopter. It's not that you can't survive an accident in a flying vehicle, it's just that you're less likely to given the speeds involved. The penalties for fuck-ups in aviation are very, very high and very, very quick.

With side skirts the whole thing is a hovercraft and merely costs hundreds of thousands for a worthwhile lifting capability, guzzle fuels, is very hard to control and provides zero advantage and many huge disadvantages compared to wheels.

Ah, hovercrafts... arguably they combine the worst features of things that fly and things that go on roads. They have a niche they do well in, but outside of that they aren't as practical as the alternatives.

I should be flying in my fucking GEV by now, or at least hoverin'...

See, that tells me you don't know nuthin' 'bout no' flyin' - flyin' is a LOT easier than hoverin'. Lots of thing fly - damn few hover whether we're talking the natural world or the man-made.

But let me explain another reason or three why we're still rolling instead of flying for the most part. It has to do with weight - it takes energy to lift things against the pull of gravity. Flying eats more fuel - again, that applies to both the natural world (flying critters have very high metabolisms and need to eat a lot) or the man-made (flying things are not terribly fuel efficient). A flying machine with the physical size of a car can't lift the weight of a car. That R-22 chopper I mentioned? It seats two, with limited baggage capability. My cheapo Toyota Echo can carry 5 adult human beings (American sized) and a trunk full of bricks. Sure, the shocks will be squashed but it will still roll. The Piper and Cessna single-engines I fly of comparable weight can't carry that much - they literally won't leave the ground. On a hot summer day, it's possible even four adult would be too much.

Which brings me to the weather. Small aircraft - and flying cars - get tossed around by wind, air currents, etc. The less the weight the more the tossing. Even ride a jumbo jet in weather that makes you feel like you're on a roller coaster? That's what the air can do to 300,000-700,000 pounds of aircraft. Imagine what it does to the two-seat, 1600 lb max weight Cessnas I fly. Weather that would have crap bouncing between ceiling and floor in a small airplane you hardly notice in a car.

Are there some good points to air travel? Sure - which is why I take the controls as often as I can afford it and the weather permits. But, trust me, the first time you're up there alone, the shit hits the fan, and you're looking for spiritual toilet paper you'll start to truly appreciate the appeal of ground-based travel.

[Broomstick]

Aw, heck, I can't resist doing my thing to the "Moller Skycar"...

Moller International has developed the first and only feasible, personally affordable, personal vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) vehicle the world has ever seen.

Tell that to the guys at my local airport who own helicoptors.

Define "feasible" - Moller's products have never been mass-produced.
Define "affordable" - by whose standards?

Of course, this machine would have to be capable of VTOL, be easy to maintain, cost effective and reliable.

Um, yeah.

I look at this "skycar" and I think... what happens if the engine quits? How well does it do on single-engine operation? No engine operation? It would have the glide profile of a brick. How the hell do you land it if there's a serious problem?

In the auto industry they boast of aerodynamics, performance tuned wide track suspensions, electronic ignition and fuel injection systems, computer controllers, and the list goes on. What good does all this "advanced engineering" do for you when the speed limit is around 60 MPH and you are stuck on crowded freeways anyway?

It keeps you on the road in bad weather
It allows you to turn without overturning
It allows you to stop efficiently
It provide greater fuel efficiency - important in these days of rising fuel prices.

Can any automobile give you this scenario? From your garage to your destination, the M400 Skycar can cruise comfortably at 350+ MPH

No, it can't. Below 18,000 feet there is a 280 knot speed limit - that's over 300, but not over 350. Within certain types of controlled airspace the speed limit is 200 knots. Is it enforced? You betcha. It's called "you're on air traffic control radar". We're back to the Ferrari on the freeway scenario.

achieve up to 28 miles per gallon.

THAT I simply do not believe. The most fuel efficient aircraft I've flown get about 10 miles to the gallon - and they're the airborne equivalent of motorcycles. They can just barely carry little ol' me aloft, at 150 lbs soaking wet.

No traffic, no red lights, no speeding tickets. Just quiet direct transportation from point A to point B in a fraction of the time.

No traffic? Come fly with me over Chicago during a busy period with the airlines - you'll be begging for the tender mercies of the freeway. No red lights? No - just a rule book of several hundred pages that must be memorized because there are no signs at 5,000 feet. No speeding tickets? No, not exactly... but the FAA usually charges $1,000-10,000 per violation of the regs in that heavy, heavy rule book.

And if you think people drive in an insane manner already... think about inattentive drivers, drunk drivers, drivers on drugs - then imagine all that taking place at 100, 200, 300 or more miles per hour.

The only upside to flying vehicles becoming the transportation norm is the evolutionary effects - after the first week, there will be a lot fewer stupid and foolish people around.

Gee, should I go on with the rest of the website, or is that enough?

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

Where I live, there are assholes that are too lazy to cross the street on foot, so they park on the wrong side of the road, facing on coming traffic.
This is quite common, yet to do this, you must knowingly drive on the wrong side of the road twice. Once to park, and once to pull away.
This is one of many bad, lazy habbits many on the road do today.

Now, try and imagine flying things doing this. Flying things that STALL, and fall out of the air if you get too abrupt with the coarse changes.
Imagine lazy people doing stupid things, at 100m+ altitudes.
Imagine the number of crashing aircraft.
Imagine people cheesing on maintenence, because they can't afford it!!!!!!!!

Imagine everything WRONG with freeway traffic, happening at 100m+ heights.

Imagine the air traffic controle system crashing because it can't handle the load.

[Sea Skimmer]

Yes, they guzzle fuel, but they don't cost millions. A brand new Robinson R-22 is under $200,000. Let's not get carried away here.

An R-22 can only carry two people as you noted below, with a total payload of just 400 pounds with its normal fuel load; the only way to haul cargo is dump it on one of the seats. If a helicopter is going to replace normal cars then it needs to have matching seating and not be overloaded by a fat couple. Just going up to an MD 500, which can really only realistically hold four people internally (and I don't think it even has seats in the rear compartment) is over 800,000. So yeah, perhaps millions is a bit of an exaggeration, but a million, that's about on target for something that would be a useabul replacement for normal sized cars.

Gee, should I go on with the rest of the website, or is that enough?

I'm amused, keep going. I hate that damned car, all it's even done is lift off vertically on a teather. For a tenth of the money the Monster Garage crew could do better with a Civic.

[Howedar]

I think you can find several more technically-minded rants about the Moller on the forums already. I'm sure I've written up at least one, although I don't recall where.

[jenat-lai]

Yes, they guzzle fuel, but they don't cost millions. A brand new Robinson R-22 is under $200,000. Let's not get carried away here.

An R-22 can only carry two people as you noted below, with a total payload of just 400 pounds with its normal fuel load; the only way to haul cargo is dump it on one of the seats. If a helicopter is going to replace normal cars then it needs to have matching seating and not be overloaded by a fat couple. Just going up to an MD 500, which can really only realistically hold four people internally (and I don't think it even has seats in the rear compartment) is over 800,000. So yeah, perhaps millions is a bit of an exaggeration, but a million, that's about on target for something that would be a useabul replacement for normal sized cars.

Gee, should I go on with the rest of the website, or is that enough?

I'm amused, keep going. I hate that damned car, all it's even done is lift off vertically on a teather. For a tenth of the money the Monster Garage crew could do better with a Civic.

Robinson R22? I posted a real helicopter before gentlemen, a Aerospaciale Dauphin II with retractable gear. Expensive, yes, but classy, like a Gulfstream IV.

[Broomstick]

OK, let's distinguish between "classy and expensive" and "practical and affordable".

A Ferrari is classy and expensive. How many Ferraris do you see on the road, hmm? Not many, that's right. Most folks buy something a little more practical and a little cheaper. If Moller is talking about his skycar replacing the family car, we are NOT talking about an aerial Ferrari, more like an airborne Camry or mid-size SUV, yes?

Likewise, you're point about the limited capabilities of the R-22 are valid - I mentioned them too. The R-22 is still a chopper, though, and has many uses. They're the "small car" end of the whirlybirds, sort of like my old Ford Festiva only with even less cargo capacity.

The upshot is, the kind of "flying car" we're talking about is NOT your fancy-dancy retractable gear helicoptor, or a Gulfstream I, II, III or IV.

[Broomstick]

I'm going to have to do this on the installment plan, so here's the next chapter, under "Technology" on the linked website. http://www.moller.com/skycar/technology/

The Skycar volantor developed by Moller International is capable of vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) much as a helicopter and flies from point of departure to destination much like an airplane.

Oh, cool! Like Harriers and Ospreys, right? Those wonderful military machines with the high accident rate that have killed a number of very skilled, highly trained, professional test pilots, right? How do they make this technology safe for the masses?

However, the Skycar volantor is uniquely qualified to travel short distances on the ground as an automobile as well.

How short? Is it a problem to travel long distances on the road? Why is short OK and long not? What effect will the backblast have on the road, roadside, nearby pedestrians? In small planes I have to watch constantly to make sure idjits are not wandering into prop blades (one such story related here: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/sho ... p?t=203741 ) and that the propwash doesn't propell debris with enough force to damage nearby people and objects. Would this be a problem for the Skycar?

All this and incredibly, its easy to fly! Actually a computer does the flying.

Gee, I'm typing on a computer that recently required a complete tear-down and rebuild... I find the notion of a computer flying an airplane not so reassuring. What do you do if the computer crashes? What do you do if the electrical system stops working? What do you do if some unusual situation crops up the computer isn't programed to handle? How can you tell it's working properly? What do you do if it isn't?

These are not idle questions. Stuff goes wrong on aircraft. It's happened to me - complete electrical failure, engine power loss, instrumentation going wonky... Computers/autopilots/etc are wonderful when they work. They don't always work.

The pilot need only move the controls in the direction he wants to go so that little skill is required.

That's pretty much how regular aircraft work - you move the controls in the desired direction.

(Still for the time being, the operator will need to have a private pilot's license until the ease of operation and safety are thoroughly demonstrated.)

Not quite - private pilot's license with the addition of a multi-engine rating, and probably high performance and complex sign-offs as well. Even if the "ease of operation" is demonstrated I don't think it likely the FAA would change the rules. Or any other civil aviation agency.

However, in order to create a safe, environmentally responsible and economically feasible method of transportation Moller International had to take into consideration a number of components including airframe and engines.

And this differs from every other aircraft how....?

A VTOL aircraft with its larger installed power must be aerodynamically efficient at high cruise speeds if it is to use that installed power efficiently. Also, if the airframe of the volantor is not appropriately aerodynamic, fuel consumption increases and its maximum travel distance (range) becomes unacceptable. The ideal airframe must also be lightweight so the craft can obtain a favorable power to weight ratio. Lastly, it must be strong for stabilization and safety.

Big hairy deal - this is true of ANY aircraft, all of it. Which is how the RV-6 achieves a true cruise speed of 180-190 knots with a measely 150 hp engine, fixed-pitch prop, fixed landing gear, and 900 -1000 lb airframe. The RV-6 also lands at a remarkably slow speed and minimal distance, despite the high cruise, which is an additional safety feature.

I'm skipping over his little lecture on achieving an efficient airframe - it mostly applies to all aircraft, not just his. If you want to see it read the website.

A few four-seat aircraft have a PTE near 70 at 250 MPH although they will generally have a fairly high landing speed without STOL (Short Takeoff and Landing) provisions (flaps, slats, etc.).

So? Fucking Piper Cubs have flaps, at least some of them do. Why? Because landing slow is a Good Thing.

The Skycar volantor's composite airframe is constructed mostly of FRP (fiber reinforced plastic) which enables it to be both lightweight and strong. We have our own 250 mph wind tunnel in which we have performed over 1000 hours of detailed flight testing using both powered and un-powered models to ensure that we have chosen an optimum design.

Then why isn't the damn thing flying untethered?

FRP is nothing new - Rutan was building airplanes with it in the 1970's. It IS lightweight and strong. It also shatters like glass on impact, should that occur - and if you're talking about a vehicle with road capability someone somewhere is going wrap it around a tree or lightpole or something. This may be airworthy, but it's nowhere near meeting crashworthy requirements on the roads.

In this case, a VTOL aircraft with a modest payload requires installed power in the 1000 HP range and an engine HP to weight ratio near 2.

Yes, you WILL need the high performance addition to your standard private pilot's license.

They therefore provide a high power-to-weight ratio at a reasonable cost and are very small for their power output. The 150 HP model used in the M400 can be easily carried by one person. Eight Rotapower engines are used in the production model volantor.

Yes, you WILL need the multi-engine rating added to your standard private pilot's license.

Wankel-type rotary engines in general are very reliable as a result of their simplicity.

HOW reliable? Numbers, please -- I should expect X engine failures in Y hours of operation? Like the Rotax 500 series I used to fly near-ultralights with had an average of 1 engine failure in every 800 hours of operation. THAT's a meaningful number. What are the numbers for Moller's engines?

Also - what about the fuel and accesory system for each engine? Sure, the engine might be reliable, but it needs fuel and air and controls. Does each engine have a separate fuel system, or do they all run on the same one? Whether you or the computer monitors this thing, how thoroughly probed and sensored are the engines? Can you isolate a malfunctiong engine from the others so problems do not spread? What about lubrication systems - separate or joined? All of these anciliary items affect engine performance and reliability. I need to know more.

[SWPIGWANG]

If it flys, it ain't a car.

flying cars are an oxymoron.

[Broomstick]

http://www.moller.com/skycar/applications/

The Skycar uses an engine that can burn almost any fuel from diesel to natural gas so that worldwide refueling can be accommodated by what is locally available. Using gasoline, the M400 can be expected to get over 25 mpg.

A multi-fuel engine? Well, that's hardly a new concept. But I've never heard of a MFE that burns all fuels equally efficiently. Note that this is not mentioned - probably using the gasoline figure because it's the best one.

25mpg is possible... it's a little hard to compare to other aircraft since their fuel burn is measure in gallons per hour.

With a range of 900 miles, the logistics associated with refueling the shorter-range helicopter can be eliminated.

Interesting question - where are you going to refuel this puppy? I used to fly airplanes that ran on premium unleaded autogas. Most gas stations refused to sell to us due to liability issues. We wound up having to truck it to our airfield. According to this website, you can run it on just about anything so I suppose you could buy fuel at just about any airport. If there are any small airports open by the time this gets to the public. And you don't mind $2.65 a gallon and up. Sure, autogas is heading in that direction, but trust me, aviation fuel will go up as well.

You want a small airport because if you land at a big one they'll charge you landing fees. No doubt these guys will claim you don't have to land it at an airport, but in many places you can't legally land an aircraft anywhere but an airport or helipad. Like Illinois - it's a state law. Ah, yes, Illinois, the state where mayors think it's perfectly OK to bulldoze an airport in the middle of the night without telling anyone... Sure, that's going to be skycar-friendly area...

That's part of the problem - this is not being built in a vacuum. It has to exist in an already present regulatory environment.

The bulk of the remaining technology is electronic and replaceable in modules as the onboard redundant systems identify a failed or failing component.

If it fails in flight can you replace it in flight? If you can't, what do you do? What if you get hit by lightning - which does happen to aircraft every year. How will the electronics hold up to that?

The landing gear on the vehicle makes roadability possible for short distances.

I would really like to look at that landing gear. WHY only short distances? Cripes, the landing gear on a Cessna could probably go miles and miles over a road if it had to - not the most efficient use of the vehicle but a potential one. How would this gear hold up to a gravel road, potholes, snow/ice, wet surfaces?

A M400 Skycar, by utilizing its VTOL capability, has the flexible access of the helicopter. In addition, it has the 350 mph maximum cruise speed, 900 mile range, and 29,000 foot ceiling of a high performance aircraft. The M400 can also climb at more than a vertical mile per minute.

All very impressive, but if you do a lot of hovering doesn't that reduce the distance range of a tank of gas? If it has a 29,000 foot ceiling what provisions have been made for supplying oxygen to the occupants? Is it pressurized? If not, do you have oxygen masks? If so, how do you compel people to use them when you can even get consistent, across the board seatbelt compliance? This is a MAJOR safety issue - unconcious pilots are a Bad Thing.

http://www.moller.com/skycar/safety/

No matter how well an engine is designed it has the potential to malfunction at some point during its lifetime. The possibility also exists that something outside the pilot's control, like bird ingestion, could cause an engine or lift fan to fail.

Ah, yes, what to do if the engine quits....

If the proposed VTOL aircraft is to be a practical size, it must use a propulsion system with fairly high fan or disc loading, which is also necessary for good cruise efficiency. A more highly loaded fan (>30 LB/ft.) is not capable of auto-rotation.

This is not making me feel good...

Therefore, any aircraft using higher disc loading will need a back-up system or systems to ensure passenger survival in case of a critical component failure.

Yes, this is very important. I'm glad they're thinking of it.

Dual Engines -- In the unlikely event of an engine failure sufficient power remains to ensure a safe and comfortable landing. Since the M400 has eight engines, one or more can fail and the Skycar will still operate safely.

No problems with differential thrust?

Unlike any light helicopter or airplane, the M400 Skycar has four engine nacelles; each with two Rotapower engines. These computer-controlled engines operate independently and allow for a vertical controlled landing should one engine fail.

If one engine fails is that landing automatic? Or at the command of the pilot? If at the pilot's command, how much training is required to perform this properly? If automatic - well, if the alternative is to "land" in the ocean when the shoreline is within reach of reduced engine power then "land immediately" is NOT your best option. It's a real bummer when your automatic safety system puts you into greater danger than necessary.

Redundant Computer Stabilization Systems -- The Skycar has redundant, independent computer systems for flight management, stability and control.

Every time some says "computer" and "aircraft" in the same system I start worrying about "general protection fault" and "this program not responding"

Should a computer problem occur backup systems would take over seamlessly. M400 has three independent computers for flight management with only one needed to fly.

OK, triple redundancy, that usually works...

Redundant Fuel Monitoring -- Multiple systems check fuel for quality and quantity and provide appropriate warnings.

And what does the pilot/driver do with those warnings?

Aerodynamically Stable -- In the unlikely event that insufficient power is available to hover, the Skycar's aerodynamic stability and good glide slope allows the pilot to maneuver to a safe area before using the airframe parachutes.

Define "good glideslope". 5:1? 7:1? 11:1? 50:1? 2:1? Oh, and now we're back needing a pilot. How much training is required to "manuver to a safe area"? Having had the "pleasure" of performing an actual emergency landing and parking an airplane in someone's backyard unexpectedly (which was very shortly before I learned about Illinois's no-landing-outside-of-an-airport law) I can truthfully say that even with training this is not an easy task. Which is definitely an argument for requiring a pilot's license for this thing.

Automated Stabilization -- Since computers control the Skycar flight during hover and transition, the only pilot input is speed and direction. Undesirable movement of the Skycar due to wind gusts is automatically prevented.

Oh, really? This thing can predict the weather? Because that's what's required for this statement to be true. You don't have to worry about gusts? Windshear? Gustfronts? Those affect every aircraft of every size. You always have to reckon with the weather.

And that is a major problem... the weather. The weather considerations for safe flying are VERY different than those for safe driving.

By the way - what, if any, anti-ice capabilities does this thing have? Can you fly it on instruments?

Inherent Simplicity of the Engines -- Rotary engines have very few moving parts and therefore require very little maintenance and have little opportunity for breakdown and wear.

Oh, skippy - you still haven't told me average hours between failures. By the way, where do you get these engines serviced?

Enclosed Fans -- Each nacelle fully encloses the engines and fans, greatly reducing the possibility of injury to individuals near the aircraft.

Now that's reassuring - but how do you keep the curious from sticking their hands inside? I mean, lawnmowers have safety features but people still manage to cut off their fingers and toes with them.

Dual Parachutes -- Even in the instance of complete power loss you and your passengers are protected. The two airframe parachutes, front and rear, will guide the volantor safely and comfortably to the ground without incidence and can be deployed in the event of a critical failure of the aircraft. With the parachutes, the pilot, passengers and the Skycar can be recovered safely. Parachutes developed for the ultra-light aircraft industry, that are ballistically ejected, have demonstrated reliable vehicle recovery above 150 feet. Recovery is possible at a much lower altitude if the aircraft has a modest forward velocity or if a spreader gun is used to spread the parachute canopy.

Interesting... and while the parachutes sound very nice don't forget the fact they don't always work. That's why skydivers routinely carry TWO of the things.

Those 'chutes develop for ultralights and lightplanes were designed to allow survival during catastrophic situations, NOT a "gentle landing". Yes, they do save lives. And a lot of the folks saved by them spend some significant time in the hospital due to broken bones and torn ligaments.

And the skycar is NOT an ultralight.

The Cirrus line of small planes have a parachute designed into them. They've been pulled three times that I'm aware of. In the first instance it just didn't deploy. In the second, it deployed after impact. In the third it fired off as designed, the pilot walked away without a scratch, and the plane was repairable. That's the current state of the art in aircraft recovery parachutes.

With the ultralight models, they seem to fail about 1/3 of the time, often due to issues of maintenance. Maintaining these, by the way, pose some hazard - they were banned in the UK after three people were killed on the ground by 'chutes that fired when they weren't supposed to.

TWO parachutes? Simultaneously? How do they minimize the chance of the two chutes becoming entangled and useless? What if only one deploys?

Yes, parachutes can be lifesavers... but like anything else, they aren't 100% reliable. I wouldn't trust an aircraft where a parachute is the primary emergency landing system.

The best primary system should use the minimum number of engines necessary together with sufficient power to hover after the failure of one engine. A multi-engine system also interfaces well with a back-up parachute system since the time between consecutive engine failures should allow sufficient opportunity for the parachute to be deployed.

Yeah, and if they all fail at once? You have to consider the worst-case scenario, you can't just go around hoping it won't happen. Sooner or later it will happen. Sooner or later something even worse than you imagined will probably happen. Consider the World Trade Center - the designers considered what would happen if a 707 accidently flew into it, but they didn't consider the effects of two even larger 767's being delibrately flown into them. The world can be a brutal place.

With the loss of an engine at 25-ft altitude the vehicle could be landed very quickly without incident. Above 25 ft altitude one can assume that the vehicle is moving forward and generating some aerodynamic lift so that a second engine failure should not be as critical.

No you can't! You can't assume that! "Some" aerodynamic lift may not be ENOUGH aerodynamic lift. Stall the aircraft you fall down! People are idiots! They'll do stupid shit like trying to see how high they can hover without forward movement. They'll find ways to break machines the engineers never dreamed of - you can NOT design an aircraft and just hope certain possible flight parameters are never tried. Because they will be.

25 feet is not high enough for your parachute to fully deploy. 25 feet is more than enough to kill you. You're talking about a very dangerous part of the flight envelope, one where people could, possibly, operate on every single flight.

This is another case of hoping the worst won't happen - and it's unrealistic. Helicoptors, Harriers, and Ospreys have similar danger zones and they use pilot training to minimize the dangers. And people still die every year from accidents in that danger zone. You're talking about turning this over to minimally trained people?

In the case where a critical number of engines fail and transition is not complete, aerodynamic lift can extend the flight time in the critical period before the parachute is fully deployed. Thus, deployment could occur at relatively low altitudes (<25 ft.) particularly if a spreader gun is used.

The lowest "save" I've heard about from a recovery chute was 90 feet - and the pilot broke a significant number of a major bones because the fall wasn't entirely broken.

In any case, a new concept aircraft can be expected to undergo the unexpected. Thus, overlapping systems to ensure passenger safety would be appropriate and should be mandatory.

Yes, they should - but I'm not volunteering to be test pilot.

Emergency options -- The Skycar can land almost anywhere, and therefore avoid dangerous situations created by a sudden weather change or equipment failure.

Oh, wait - I thought that whiz-bang computer control system prevented undesirable wind effects. You mean I can't fly this in a hailstorm?

Can land almost anywhere? OK... but who chooses the landing spot, you or the machine? Then there's the matter of a local pilot I know of who sucessfully landed his small plane on a road after an engine failure and a hundred feet down the road wound up in a traffic accident. Just because you're down doesn't mean you're safe.

[Howedar]

I would also point out that the aerodynamics of the Moller are truly asstastic. As in painfully bad. I'd be astonished if you got a glide ratio above 5:1.

I also like how the front engines are perfectly positioned to cause FOD damage to the rear ones.

[aerius]

I'm gonna go out on a limb and make a prediction. Flying cars will be a pipedream until we invent a small, efficient, foolproof anti-gravity device to keep the car in the air. Until then, all flying cars will be horrible half-baked kludges at best with marginal functionality.

[Broomstick]

http://www.moller.com/skycar/performance/

The Skycar performance exceeds that of any light helicopter, including a top speed that is three times faster. When compared to a high-performance airplane, the Skycar has vertical takeoff and landing capability, is safer and potentially less expensive.

While a vehicle that flies like an airplane and hovers like a helicoptor is, arguably, more versitile than either of the other two aircraft, I don't feel it has been demonstrated to be "safer". Vectored-thrust aircraft (which is what we're talking about here) have a dismal safety record, even worse than helicoptors, which have a worse safety record than airplanes. This is getting into "extraordinary claim" regions.

And note the statement potentially less expensive - no guarantees, folks. Could cost more!

The resulting flexibility allows many transportation applications to be addressed for the first time.

Nice, vague promise - but notice he doesn't actually LIST any of these exciting possibilities.

http://www.moller.com/skycar/operation/

Moller is currently working with the FAA to obtain certification of the M400 Skycar under the "powered lift normal" category.

I never heard of this one - but I'll freely admit I'm a fixed wing pilot with little expertise outside that realm. Nonetheless, he could have referenced the FAR's pertaining to this.

In addition, the FAA has established a "powered lift" pilot's license.

No it hasn't. "Powered lift" is either a category or class of aircraft - honestly, I get the technical distinction muddled - and as such is mentioned under one's certificate privileges. Thus, my pilot's "license" states I fly fixed wing, single engine land. If I went and got a rotorcraft rating it would state that as well. And if I went and got a "powered lift" rating it would state that. There are people who start out on rotorcraft, and thus have a private "license" (technically, it's a "certificate") with rotorcraft privileges. But there ain't no such thing as a "powered lift" license, and again, note that there is no reference to the pertinent regulations.

All of which is picky picky picky. The upshot, though, is that there is NOT a particular license for this thing - you STILL have to have, at minimum, a private pilot's license, with the multi-engine and high-performance add-ons to legally fly this thing in the United States - or most other countries, I'd suspect.

This, together with a thorough familiarization, will be required to pilot a Skycar, primarily to ensure adequate flight management and navigational skills.

In other words, you need a fucking pilot's license for this thing. That's $4-6k USD. Use any euphenism you want, weasel, that's the bottom line. End of story.

A Skycar is not piloted like a traditional fixed wing airplane and has only two hand-operated controls

Well, yeah, DUH! That's like saying a helicoptor isn't piloted like a traditional fixed wing airplane. Or a balloon isn't piloted like a fixed wing aircraft. That's because it's not a fixed wing aircraft! This statement means little.

Shown at the right is a picture of the controls of an M150 prototype.

Well, judging by the picture it's completely lacking in either the standard "6-pack" of instruments or a modern flight management director. So it's strictly visual flight rules. Regardless of the paperwork and training of the pilot, you can't fly (simplifying a bit here) unless the lowest point of the cloud deck is 3000 feet with 3 miles visibility. At least in urban areas. I'm trying to avoid an exhaustive and potentially very boring lecture on airspace and rules, but basically this thing is restricted to only very good weather.

OK, it's a prototype, maybe a production model will be better equipped. If we ever see a production model.

http://www.moller.com/skycar/advantages/

Hover tests in the earlier M200X demonstrated a noise level of 85 decibels at 50 feet, less than 30% of the noise level produced by a Cessna 150 during take-off.

Apples and oranges. A C150 at take-off is producing maximum noise at that point - and I question if the lowly, 100 hp C150 is 85 decibels. I do know the Piper Warrior is rated at 75 decibels at take-off with a 160 hp engine. (I have doubts about that figure, too, to be honest)

Meanwhile, hovering at 50 feet, the skycar would NOT be producing maximum thrust - so it's not a fair comparison.

Also, where are these noise levels being measured? Is the C150 noise being measure at the side of the runway, at take-off? Is the skycar's being monitored from ground level while it hovers at 50 feet? 50 feet DOES make a difference. A C150 is generally several hundred feet away from areas ever likely to have people in them while taking off, and is required to maintain a minimum altitude over urban areas of between 500 and 1000 feet depending on density, 2000 feet over national parks and other designated areas. What about the skycar? Is Moller anticipating routine operations at 50 feet everywhere? Then even at 65 db it would be more of a noise nuisance than a louder Cessna at 1000 feet.

This comparison gives little or no meaningful information.

The company's on-going work in mutual noise cancellation is expected to reduce the M400 Skycar noise level sufficiently to eventually allow urban usage.

So, um, what does that mean? You can't fly it over urban areas now? Damn. I can fly the "noisy" Cessna over urban areas.

The Rotapower engine produces little NOx, the most difficult pollutant to eliminate. In addition, using a stratified charge combustion process greatly reduces the unburned hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide emitted.

I don't have enough technical knowledge to evaluation this statement, however, if someone else does please feel free to jump in.

The absence of unprotected rotating components such as propellers and rotors makes the Skycar friendlier to both users and by-standers.

I'll grant that unducted props on small planes are a potential hazard to those nearby, but I've never found them "unfriendly" when properly using a smal airplane.

The Skycar's fuel-efficient engines and ability to run on regular automotive gasoline result in low fuel costs. The Skycar is significantly more fuel efficient in passenger miles per gallon than the tilt-rotor V22 Osprey, helicopters or many commercial jet airplanes.

Apples and oranges again. Personal aviation - which is the niche the skycar is looking at - does not involve Ospreys or "commercial jet airplanes'. It DOES involve some small helicoptors, and the single-engine (SEL) fixed-wings. So the proper comparison is with the SEL's, not United Airlines or the US Military.

Vehicle purchase price is a dominant factor in determining overall cost of ownership.

A dominant one, perhaps, but not the only one. The maintenance required to keep ANY aircraft airworthy is substantial. $3-5K USD is typical, although IF you can do some of your own work (including sign-off by a certified mechanic) you can save a few pennies. That's just maintenance and parts on a SEL, NOT insurance, fuel, oil, hangar/tie-down...

As a rule of thumb, helicoptors cost at least three times as much as a fixed-wing. That's $9-15k USD maintenance per year.

And how much will a skycar cost to maintain....?

For example, the Skycar's purchase price per passenger seat is projected to be 10% of that for the 30 passenger V22 Osprey.

Apples and oranges. The skycar's niche is NOT a 30 passenger vehicle, it's a 4-6 person vehicle. This is like comparing a school bus to a sedan. Very misleading.

Mechanically complex machines like the V22 Osprey and large helicopters are unlikely to undergo significant reduction in manufacturing costs since mass-production of such a large and expensive aircraft is unlikely.

Note the qualification of large helicoptor. And I don't accept the "large aircraft unlikely to be mass-produced" argument. How many jets has Boeing and Airbus sold? How many Lears and Gulfstreams are out there?

In addition, the Skycar's operating profile is especially attractive given the user's ability to determine his or her own specific departure time and destination, a great advantage over other mass transportation systems.

I determine my own departure and destination when I fly already - big hairy deal.

And the skycar's niche is NOT mass transit, it's personal transit. Again, bad comparison. Apples and kumquats this time.

Lots of hype, little substance.

Let me clue ya'll in to something - flying an airplane isn't that difficult if you're talking about making it go where you point it. If you can handle a stick shift car you can learn to take-off and land. Some of the newer types are even simpler, approaching the ease of driving a car with an automatic transmission. There are parapeligics who fly airplanes. There are people missing arms who fly airplanes (one of them, in fact, makes his living flying aerobatics in airshows). It does NOT take extraordinary skill, strength, or talent to manipulate the controls.

The HARD parts of flying are the judgement/emergency response issues. You have to know when NOT to fly, because conditions are either hazardous or shortly will be. If something goes wrong you have to deal with it immediately, and correctly. Aviation is NOT forgiving of fools or stupidity. THAT's the hard part - having the judgement and the self-discipline to not only go up and come down but to do so with minimal risk to life and limb.

Do you think the average asshole on the street careless of the rules and indulging in all manner of distractions will be able to safely fly? I don't think so.

[Howedar]

The Rotapower engine produces little NOx, the most difficult pollutant to eliminate. In addition, using a stratified charge combustion process greatly reduces the unburned hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide emitted.

Wow, so it's up to date with late 1980s automobile piston engines.

I'm supposed to be impressed... why?

The Skycar's fuel-efficient engines and ability to run on regular automotive gasoline result in low fuel costs. The Skycar is significantly more fuel efficient in passenger miles per gallon than the tilt-rotor V22 Osprey, helicopters or many commercial jet airplanes.

I call bullshit here. A loaded heavy usually gets something like 50 passenger-miles per gallon. I expect a V-22 is something like 16 p-mi/gal, based on some back-of-the-envelope calculations (numbers from here, bearing in mind that not all fuel is burned. I assume 1200 statute mile max range). For the Moller to beat this, it would need to get over 60 miles per gallon! This is better than that tiny Honda hybrid car, and would be pretty fucking outstanding for an eight-engined aircraft with a thousand horsepower

[Nathan F]

How, pray tell, did that get around

Think I must be confusing you with someone else. My apologies.