Skycar... anything behind it?

[Imrational]

I've been hearing about this "skycar", flying car, for years now. The aspiring inventor seems to be an awesome self-publicist and promoter. Is there anything to it? Does it actually look promising, or is it self-delusionment on his part (or worse, hucksterism)?

I'd post a link, but I don't have enough posts yet. Just google "skycar".

[PixyMisa]

The Moller Skycar. Yeah. It can hover...

It's one of those things that are physically possible, engineeringly problematic, and economically disastrous.

[LTC8K6]

It has looked promising to some folks for quite a while now....

[Imrational]

Yeah, but would it be a feasible means of personal transport?

[delphi_ote]

Yeah, but would it be a feasible means of personal transport?

I think it would already be on the market if it were.

[Metullus]

Back in 1987 the guy was asking people to pony up $100,000 to get in the front of the line for owning one. His schtick was that we would have them in our garages by 1995. He had cool mock-ups and glossy brochures even then.

Not gonna happen anytime soon, though. Maybe when the fly-by-computer technology being used in modern fighter aircraft becomes super cheap...

[ChristineR]

Hmm...based on his videos, the thing hasn't actually flown yet, save a few very short test runs. He also claims that the main bottleneck will be FAA approval, which will take three years. Yet he somehow is promising to have the car in production by 2008.

[Bikewer]

The entire concept is terrifying. People drive conventional automobiles with the absolute minimum level of competence and utter disregard for the simplest safety precautions.
This guy wants to put these people in the air?

[TimmyBerry]

2 words: Population control.

[tsg]

The entire concept is terrifying. People drive conventional automobiles with the absolute minimum level of competence and utter disregard for the simplest safety precautions.
This guy wants to put these people in the air?

My bet is the FAA is going to require a pilot's license for anyone who wants to operate one. That is if it, no pun intended (well, maybe a little), gets off the ground.

[Ace_of_Sevens]

Last I heard, the idea was to completely automate these things while in the air.

[TheChadd]

How exactly is a 'flying car' different from a plane? I would be interested to see it.
edit: http://www.moller.com/skycar/ - You can see a picture there... I was right, it looks very much like some small form of plane. He's taken a plane, made it look kinda funky and called it a 'car'. Good work.

[fishbait]

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. Like landing "comfortably" in the middle of Lake Michigan or a tree?

[LTC8K6]

Or some lovely power lines, perchance?

Wait till you hear how loud the thing is....

Why is it better than a helicopter?

[PixyMisa]

Well, it's ducted, so you can't chop people up with the rotors.

And it glides slightly better than a brick.

On the other hand, helicopters can fly.

[Ririon]

Well, it's ducted, so you can't chop people up with the rotors.

And it glides slightly better than a brick.

On the other hand, helicopters can fly.
Good case for the helicopter... :) And everybody knows that we will have flying cars in the year 2000. -Wait a second- :boggled: :confused:

[TheChadd]

I think once a car is flying.. it is no longer a car.

[Ririon]

I think once a car is flying.. it is no longer a car.
Or it will cease to function as one very soon..

[MRC_Hans]

Mmm, it is a small one-seat VTOL aeroplane. What exactly is new? I looks like something any competent aeroplane constructor could have built for the past six decades, but didn't because what market potential does exist for a low-payload, high maintenance (all those props and variable drives and articulated ducts will require some looking after) VTOL aircraft has been amply filled out by helicopters.

Perhaps sombody ought to tell this guy (or more likely, his potential sponsors ;)) that sometime shortly after 1918, the obstacle for proliferating private flight ceased to be availability of suitable aircraft techonology, and became a traffic control and safety issue, and as long as we don't have an affordable and 100% safe automatic steering and anti-collision control system, it will continue to be so.

ETA: But I'll sure look and see if somebody modelled this for MS flight simulator ;).

Hans

[PixyMisa]

Yep. (http://flyawaysimulation.com/downloads-file-854-details.html)

[Crispy Duck]

How exactly is a 'flying car' different from a plane?

Apparently, in the USA at least, a vehicle which can become airborne but cannot (or does not) go above 50' above ground level doesn't count as an aircraft and the FAA does not require the operator to have a pilot's license.

See http://www.hovercraft.com/menu_hoverwing.html for more.

I saw this "hoverwing" on a TV programme, and they claimed that it could go above 50', which would imply that it is not relying on ground effect to remain airborne. Apparently, that still doesn't make it an aircraft.... hmm.

[TheChadd]

or does not

Would this mean as long as I fly my helicopter really really low I don't need a pilots license?! :scared:

[ChristineR]

The website points out that if you ever get your Skycar, you will need a pilot's license. But Moller says that once everyone has one and they are all flying by GPS and automatic collision avoidance systems, the FAA will drop that requirement.

I actually agree with him. It's that pesky unfullfilled conditional that will get him in trouble.

[Bikewer]

Futurist-types have envisioned computer-controlled trafficways, where the operator would surrender complete control of the vehicle (of whatever type) to the automated system.
Perhaps, at some point when complete reliability of such systems might be in place.... I wouldn't want it run on Windows.

[MRC_Hans]

Yep. (http://flyawaysimulation.com/downloads-file-854-details.html)Cool! Can't wait to take it for a spin (hopefully not literally).

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Apparently, in the USA at least, a vehicle which can become airborne but cannot (or does not) go above 50' above ground level doesn't count as an aircraft and the FAA does not require the operator to have a pilot's license.

See http://www.hovercraft.com/menu_hoverwing.html for more.

I saw this "hoverwing" on a TV programme, and they claimed that it could go above 50', which would imply that it is not relying on ground effect to remain airborne. Apparently, that still doesn't make it an aircraft.... hmm.Mmm, unless it is a quite large craft, ground effect will be negligible at 50'. So if it can go to 50, it can go to more. Anyway, a specific altitude is a silly way to distinguish between an aricraft and a ground effect craft. The important distinction is whether it needs to be controlled in three dimensions or not.

:eek: Just got a mental image of American rednecks blasting across the countryside in "ground effect cars" at 49' and 250mph! :eek:

Hans

[TheChadd]

Perhaps, at some point when complete reliability of such systems might be in place.... I wouldn't want it run on Windows.

Years ago such a system for highway use was designed and tested successfully using cars by GM. They scrapped the project however because they found that they were recieving little support from consumers about the idea of relinquishing control.

[MRC_Hans]

Well, I think it is something about psychology. Fully automated trains have been possible to make for decades, but they are only just beginning to show up. I guess people simply prefer to be killed by a human rather than a robot.

Hans

[petre]

Well, I think it is something about psychology. Fully automated trains have been possible to make for decades, but they are only just beginning to show up. I guess people simply prefer to be killed by a human rather than a robot.

Hans

Exactly. Imagine plugging your system to congress...

"Our system is finally ready for country-wide full automation, and we expect drastic results. Based on component failure rates and data collection errors, we expect computer-driven cars will kill about 5,000 people. Per year."

*thud**thud**thud**thud**thud**thud**thud*(jaws hitting floor)

"We can't put these things on the road! They'd kill thousands a year? We need to prevent these murderous machines from harming our citizens!"

(over 40,000 people die per year now with humans at the wheel)

Not that automation is that good yet, last I knew (though it was a while ago) they had trouble just keeping them in the lanes (of course, new markers and such in the road would help things).

Think about it, would you prefer to die because someone was speeding and not paying attention, or because some coder forgot to check for a NULL before dereffing a pointer? :)

[Ririon]

:eek: Just got a mental image of American rednecks blasting across the countryside in "ground effect cars" at 49' and 250mph! :eek:
Hans
15 m? :eek: indeed, redneck or not! Why is nobody doing that in the land of the free and the home of the very very brave? At least there is a Darwin award in it for the first to try. The Soviet Union did a lot of military ground effect research (in the sixties? Source: Vague memory of tv documentary). I'm sure there are some nice blueprints for sale!

[Ririon]

Think about it, would you prefer to die because someone was speeding and not paying attention, or because some coder forgot to check for a NULL before dereffing a pointer? :)
How incredibly scary would an accident like that be? The "car" just slams into something and there is nothing whatsoever you can do about it!

Maybe there should be a safety device: IF passengers scream like they are about to die a sudden and painful death THEN kindly consider applying the brakes. That works with the current system... ;)

[Crispy Duck]

The Soviet Union did a lot of military ground effect research...

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekranoplan

I want one :)

[richardm]

we expect computer-driven cars will kill about 5,000 people. Per year."

Oh dear, you'll never make a politician old chap! The correct thing to say would be:

we expect computer-driven cars will save the lives of over 35,000 people. Per year."

[Jon.]

Well, I think it is something about psychology. Fully automated trains have been possible to make for decades, but they are only just beginning to show up. I guess people simply prefer to be killed by a human rather than a robot.

Hans

Here in Vancouver, we've had computer-controlled trains (http://www.translink.bc.ca/Transportation_Services/SkyTrain/default.asp) since 1986.

[patnray]

The entire concept is terrifying. People drive conventional automobiles with the absolute minimum level of competence and utter disregard for the simplest safety precautions.
This guy wants to put these people in the air?
Right! Driving is scary enough with idiots to left and right of me. Do I want them above and below me as well?

[Ririon]

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekranoplan

I want one :)
Cool stuff, but only usable over water without big waves. The article gives a cruising height of 1-4 m, which is useless over land (except salt lakes or other very flat places. Denmark?;).) And of course nothing like the FAA 50' (15 m).

[c4ts]

If I had a skycar, I could go to work on snow days, or go on a road trip to Cuba.


GOOD GAWD! WHY WOULD I WANT TO DO ANY OF THAT??

[ChristineR]

If I had a skycar, I could go to work on snow days, or go on a road trip to Cuba.


GOOD GAWD! WHY WOULD I WANT TO DO ANY OF THAT??

Too bad they've never actually flown the thing! The website has several videos of the car hovering, and one video of the car actually moving...BUT it's an old model without any wheels AND it was attached to a wire the whole time, so it just went out a little way and came back.:boggled:

[Psi Baba]

Apparently, in the USA at least, a vehicle which can become airborne but cannot (or does not) go above 50' above ground level doesn't count as an aircraft and the FAA does not require the operator to have a pilot's license.

See http://www.hovercraft.com/menu_hoverwing.html for more.

I saw this "hoverwing" on a TV programme, and they claimed that it could go above 50', which would imply that it is not relying on ground effect to remain airborne. Apparently, that still doesn't make it an aircraft.... hmm.
From the site you linked to:
In ground-effect it can fly up to an altitude of five feet above the earth's surface. Flying in ground-effect enables you to clear obstacles and fly over rough water for a smooth and enjoyable ride. Flying in ground-effect does not require a pilot license and the craft is normally registered as a boat in most areas.
Frequently Asked Questions The UH-18SPW Hoverwing
Q: How high can the Hoverwing fly?
A: Average flying altitude for the Hoverwing is 3-4 feet. The maximum altitude for the Hoverwing is 20 feet. The altitude is not effected by the surface that the Hoverwing is flying over.