SkyCar

[Andrew Blair]

Yep, this sucker has been publicized like crazy, but simply doesn't have the flight part of the equation. If you look at the tests, it can hover fine, but only up to a point, where you would imagine the VTOL equivalent of ground effect would cut out. The engines are nearly throttled, and yet it can seem to go higher than about 40-50', ever. Even to clear treees and get *moving* in a forward direction, it would need twice that height. Their computer control seems a bit adventurous as well- the landing part of the VTOL is a bit rough. It simply doesn't seem doable with their setup now. And I don't really like the paint job.


What I will give them credit for is their marketing. The Skycar has appeared on many Discovery type programs, they have generated alot of interest, and they even have their own diecast models. They really have done a good job with pushing their hovercraft.

[KenWittlief]

Originally Posted by Andrew Blair

What I will give them credit for is their marketing. ....

actually that is the thing I hold against Moller the most. He has taken a lot of 'investment' money from little old ladies retirement funds, and has not given back one cent of return on their investment.

I dont think he is selling flying cars, he is selling an idea that doesnt fly.

[Eugenia Gabrielov]

High doses of marketing may lead to the availibility of grants, funding, extra resources...even if prospects are currently slim, a bit of advertising could go a long way.

[KenWittlief]

but here's the thing, the flight equations for VTOL and STOL aircraft are well known.

A college senior in an aerospace engineering course could run the equations on this thing in two or three days, and determine if it will fly or not

but this guy has been hawking this 'invention' for years and years and years, taking money from anyone he can sell the idea to

and all he has been able to do after all this time is get one to hover, while its hanging on tether wires?!

The Wright Brothers didnt take this long, and they had nothing to work with but hack saws, files and primative machine shop equipment.

If it wont fly then all the money in the world cant break the laws of physics.

[KelliV]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

this guy has been hawking this 'invention' for years and years and years, taking money from anyone he can sell the idea to
and all he has been able to do after all this time is get one to hover, while its hanging on tether wires?!

I actually got to meet this guy early last July while I was working NEXTfest, and asking for money seemed to be all he could do. He even asked me if I wanted to sponser him. My advice to everyone is not to get your hopes up. His "vision" included everyone having one of these and them being set on auto pilot 98% of the time. When asked how he would achieve this he said "watch and see"

[KenWittlief]

Its somewhat humorous that we have this thread, and another one talking about the Smart car that gets 60mpg

for this thing to fly at all would take hundreds of HP (at continuous full throttle), and you would be lucky to get 2mpg with something that flys like a brick.

I was thinking last night of real aviation innovators, like Burt Rutan, who has designed and produced many successful aircraft and the first commercially produced space craft "SpaceShipOne" over the last 20 - 30 years.

Its a great contrast between real engineers (Rutan) and WannaBees.

There is no magic involved in making things fly, you just gotta know what you are doing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burt_Rutan

[=Martin=Taylor=]

During the build season, everyone on my team was hot to build a robot that could do everything. A robot that could be defensive, could pick up massive amounts of balls, could score with the camera, could score 1pt & 3pt balls.

We felt it was important to be diverse and to be able to accomplish all the tasks.

I think Moller feels much the same way.

He wanted to build a car that could fly.

But in building a car that could fly he was forced to sacrifice the design aspects that make for a successful car. And in building an airplane that could drive he was forced to sacrifice the design aspects that make an airplane successful.

In the end Moller ended up with a vehicle that wasn't much good as an airplane and wasn't much good as a car.

Unfortunately, this was also true for our robot. It wasn't that great at shooting 3pt. or 1pt. balls.

I think there is a great lesson to be learned here.

[sanddrag]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Hachiban VIII again.

Darn. Well, I like the nice comparison there. Just one more piece of evidence that FIRST easly relates to real world situations.

[GaryVoshol]

Maybe they could run this thing on HHO gas

We've heard for ages that future transportation will be flying cars. Does anyone really think the future will be like the Jetsons, with us trying to jam our "car" into the crowded "freeway" airspace? When there's no roads required, people will tend to want to go directly from A to B. What a mess that would be to regulate!

Oh, and you think you get lost now when you have directions like, "Get on I-AA, drive 20 miles, get off at Exit X, turn left, go east 2 miles, and turn left again." Flying directions would be, "Fly heading north 14.7 degrees west 18.2 miles." Try that in the fog or a snowstorm!

[KenWittlief]

Right now it would be very possible for small 'family planes' to be designed and sold. Alaska is a good example - I think more people own airplanes than cars in some parts of the state.

A state of the art, small aircraft could be designed to fly on auto pilot from takeoff to landing - and since they would be small the runways would also be small.

In fact, auto pilot on a aircraft is easier in many aspects, because you would not fly 3 feet off the ground, compaired to making an auto pilot system for a car, that drives 3 feet away from the center guard rail.

Flying cars, like the Jetsons, would take a breakthrough in technology - antigravity engines or some other way to defy gravity besides raw horsepower and wings.

[zander_108]

I happen to be VERY in-depth into this subject, and i can tell you something about it... Do your research.. because you'll find there are soooo many more ideas out there than what you can just see... And FYI, the moller skycar can fly forward, it just is not alowed to because they are not legally alowed to fly it over land, and claim to need to make a lake... That is, if they are not lying about the amount of horsepower it has.. I belive with the system they have (which i actually do not think is very efficent) Is doable...

And for other aspects.. Theres a man named Henry Coanda, and he has made a solution for this.. Its called vortex thrusters, and as unreal as it may seem, it is more real than you can think... In fact, its takes just as much time, effort, and HP to make something that is 10 times more efficient for its size..

Video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...21766021117771
Info: http://www.ultralightamerica.com/edavlll.htm
(that site has alot of other EXTREMLY iteresting info)

And dont forget about these little things called "lifters".. These work for sure, because i mad one... No moving parts, with complete off-the-ground hovering... too good to be true? I beg to differ;
link: http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/main.htm