Rotary powered air cooled Flying car!
Thread Starter
Maroon 88 rx7 automatic
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
From: a Townhouse
Rotary powered air cooled Flying car!
Been tracking this one for a few Years.. At first they had Problems. Looked like it was not going to be reliable. But thanks to New computer Flight Controlls Looks like this one is going to get a green light...20 mpg. top speed 350mph
Moller skycar
http://youtube.com/watch?v=_A0CGCxYS...elated&search=
Moller skycar
http://youtube.com/watch?v=_A0CGCxYS...elated&search=
Rotary Freak
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,267
Likes: 3
A few years? Moller has been selling the Skycar concept since the early '80s! After 20+ years and tens of millions of Moller's personal bankroll, they have done a tethered hover test. Have they even done a conventional flight? Every few years we see some new and improved *concept* from Moller make the rounds in the press. I guess they finally decided to step it up a notch and actually leave the earth by a few feet, but after all this time I have little faith in Moller. He strikes me as an enormously rich version of a guy who is perpetually working on his project car but keeps changing the details without ever finishing even one version.
Addicted to the PNW
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,881
Likes: 0
From: sumner,wa
it gets WAAAAAAAY worse
google dupont dp2
and check this out
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1849081/posts
theres someone that has issues with admitting defeat
Trending Topics
Thread Starter
Maroon 88 rx7 automatic
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
From: a Townhouse
Well If that moller sky car makes the showroom floor its like over a million bucks. Cheaper to buy a one seat chopper for 50k. But I been looking hard on youtube and other forums and even googled info on the skycar. And i agree that there are just a few ok maybe like three videos showing it hover. So im not sure how many hover hours they have. But i dont think its alot. Now Hovering is the hardest part. It needs to hover steady. For the life of me i cant find any video of it in cruise mode.
Wonder if they are afraid of it crashing. who knows
Wonder if they are afraid of it crashing. who knows
Rotary Freak
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,267
Likes: 3
Well If that moller sky car makes the showroom floor its like over a million bucks. Cheaper to buy a one seat chopper for 50k. But I been looking hard on youtube and other forums and even googled info on the skycar. And i agree that there are just a few ok maybe like three videos showing it hover. So im not sure how many hover hours they have. But i dont think its alot. Now Hovering is the hardest part. It needs to hover steady. For the life of me i cant find any video of it in cruise mode.
Wonder if they are afraid of it crashing. who knows
Wonder if they are afraid of it crashing. who knows
Fly out of Your Back Yard!
I can remember pictures on the cover of Popular Science and other mags going back to the late 1940s, with pictures of small machines that would take of literally from your back yard and fly at ridiculous speeds and distances. I have a copy of a magazine published in 1943, with an article about helicopters. No less than Igor Sikorsky himself is quoted as saying that "Within ten years, helicopters will be as common as automobiles".
I have a couple of degrees in Aero engineering, am an experienced pilot, and have flown a wide variety of types, so I think I have some grasp of the problem. Helicopters are extremely complex, and have a large number of MOVING PARTS, the failure of any one of which is catastrophic. For most of recent history, the US military has kept helicopter accident statistics classified. The Moller monstrosity has used, for most of its 25 years of design and handwaving, eight (thats 8) engines, basically rotary snowmobile engines. The reason for 8 engines, is that with only 4 (one at each corner), if one fails, you die. And Moller has stated in the voluminous "facts" and statistics he likes to quote, that the probability of an engine failing during the critical takeoff or landing phases of flight is less than one in a million flights. The highly developed engines used on commercial jets are the most reliable engines you can create, and they have failures on takeoff on the order of one in a thousand.
Note that the only production machine to have this sort of capability is the Harrier, which uses only one engine, a very complex set of controls, and is very demanding of the pilot. It has a very short range, and will exhaust its fuel in a few minutes in the hover mode.
Moller has claimed speeds and flight distances that are at least 3 times what is even theoretically possible with his design. He is nothing but a con man, and the fact that he has managed to swindle the US government out of millions of dollars for his absurd scheme is a testament to the stupidity of the members of congress who supported it. (No news there, I guess).
No one has even stopped to think about the implication of the scheme if it could work. Can you imagine what would happen if you actually had hundreds of these things flying about the city, flown not by professional pilots, but by the same idiots you have to deal with on the freeway every day? Now assume half of them are talking on their cell phones. The term "fender bender" takes on a whole new meaning, doesn't it?
I used to do aviation photography, and the attached photos were taken in about 1979 by my friend and photographer Jim Larsen from the back seat of my T-6, just off the beach at Edmonds (see the oil tanks). We arranged this after the airshow at Paine Field when the performers were heading home. Notice the Harrier exhaust nozzles are pointed down - he was basically in hover mode to fly with these slower airplanes, and the lift is all provided by the thrust, so the fuel consumption is horrendous (not to mention the noise!).
I have a couple of degrees in Aero engineering, am an experienced pilot, and have flown a wide variety of types, so I think I have some grasp of the problem. Helicopters are extremely complex, and have a large number of MOVING PARTS, the failure of any one of which is catastrophic. For most of recent history, the US military has kept helicopter accident statistics classified. The Moller monstrosity has used, for most of its 25 years of design and handwaving, eight (thats 8) engines, basically rotary snowmobile engines. The reason for 8 engines, is that with only 4 (one at each corner), if one fails, you die. And Moller has stated in the voluminous "facts" and statistics he likes to quote, that the probability of an engine failing during the critical takeoff or landing phases of flight is less than one in a million flights. The highly developed engines used on commercial jets are the most reliable engines you can create, and they have failures on takeoff on the order of one in a thousand.
Note that the only production machine to have this sort of capability is the Harrier, which uses only one engine, a very complex set of controls, and is very demanding of the pilot. It has a very short range, and will exhaust its fuel in a few minutes in the hover mode.
Moller has claimed speeds and flight distances that are at least 3 times what is even theoretically possible with his design. He is nothing but a con man, and the fact that he has managed to swindle the US government out of millions of dollars for his absurd scheme is a testament to the stupidity of the members of congress who supported it. (No news there, I guess).
No one has even stopped to think about the implication of the scheme if it could work. Can you imagine what would happen if you actually had hundreds of these things flying about the city, flown not by professional pilots, but by the same idiots you have to deal with on the freeway every day? Now assume half of them are talking on their cell phones. The term "fender bender" takes on a whole new meaning, doesn't it?
I used to do aviation photography, and the attached photos were taken in about 1979 by my friend and photographer Jim Larsen from the back seat of my T-6, just off the beach at Edmonds (see the oil tanks). We arranged this after the airshow at Paine Field when the performers were heading home. Notice the Harrier exhaust nozzles are pointed down - he was basically in hover mode to fly with these slower airplanes, and the lift is all provided by the thrust, so the fuel consumption is horrendous (not to mention the noise!).
Rotary Freak
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,267
Likes: 3
There is a new hovering aircraft going into production: the F-35! The fan approach was genius...no hot gas injestion problems, like with the Harrier. Plus it goes supersonic!
Anyway, I had an inspiration. Moller should start smaller. Here is my artist's conception of the skyPHONE:
Anyway, I had an inspiration. Moller should start smaller. Here is my artist's conception of the skyPHONE:
Thread Starter
Maroon 88 rx7 automatic
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
From: a Townhouse
I can remember pictures on the cover of Popular Science and other mags going back to the late 1940s, with pictures of small machines that would take of literally from your back yard and fly at ridiculous speeds and distances. I have a copy of a magazine published in 1943, with an article about helicopters. No less than Igor Sikorsky himself is quoted as saying that "Within ten years, helicopters will be as common as automobiles".
I have a couple of degrees in Aero engineering, am an experienced pilot, and have flown a wide variety of types, so I think I have some grasp of the problem. Helicopters are extremely complex, and have a large number of MOVING PARTS, the failure of any one of which is catastrophic. For most of recent history, the US military has kept helicopter accident statistics classified. The Moller monstrosity has used, for most of its 25 years of design and handwaving, eight (thats 8) engines, basically rotary snowmobile engines. The reason for 8 engines, is that with only 4 (one at each corner), if one fails, you die. And Moller has stated in the voluminous "facts" and statistics he likes to quote, that the probability of an engine failing during the critical takeoff or landing phases of flight is less than one in a million flights. The highly developed engines used on commercial jets are the most reliable engines you can create, and they have failures on takeoff on the order of one in a thousand.
Note that the only production machine to have this sort of capability is the Harrier, which uses only one engine, a very complex set of controls, and is very demanding of the pilot. It has a very short range, and will exhaust its fuel in a few minutes in the hover mode.
Moller has claimed speeds and flight distances that are at least 3 times what is even theoretically possible with his design. He is nothing but a con man, and the fact that he has managed to swindle the US government out of millions of dollars for his absurd scheme is a testament to the stupidity of the members of congress who supported it. (No news there, I guess).
No one has even stopped to think about the implication of the scheme if it could work. Can you imagine what would happen if you actually had hundreds of these things flying about the city, flown not by professional pilots, but by the same idiots you have to deal with on the freeway every day? Now assume half of them are talking on their cell phones. The term "fender bender" takes on a whole new meaning, doesn't it?
I used to do aviation photography, and the attached photos were taken in about 1979 by my friend and photographer Jim Larsen from the back seat of my T-6, just off the beach at Edmonds (see the oil tanks). We arranged this after the airshow at Paine Field when the performers were heading home. Notice the Harrier exhaust nozzles are pointed down - he was basically in hover mode to fly with these slower airplanes, and the lift is all provided by the thrust, so the fuel consumption is horrendous (not to mention the noise!).
I have a couple of degrees in Aero engineering, am an experienced pilot, and have flown a wide variety of types, so I think I have some grasp of the problem. Helicopters are extremely complex, and have a large number of MOVING PARTS, the failure of any one of which is catastrophic. For most of recent history, the US military has kept helicopter accident statistics classified. The Moller monstrosity has used, for most of its 25 years of design and handwaving, eight (thats 8) engines, basically rotary snowmobile engines. The reason for 8 engines, is that with only 4 (one at each corner), if one fails, you die. And Moller has stated in the voluminous "facts" and statistics he likes to quote, that the probability of an engine failing during the critical takeoff or landing phases of flight is less than one in a million flights. The highly developed engines used on commercial jets are the most reliable engines you can create, and they have failures on takeoff on the order of one in a thousand.
Note that the only production machine to have this sort of capability is the Harrier, which uses only one engine, a very complex set of controls, and is very demanding of the pilot. It has a very short range, and will exhaust its fuel in a few minutes in the hover mode.
Moller has claimed speeds and flight distances that are at least 3 times what is even theoretically possible with his design. He is nothing but a con man, and the fact that he has managed to swindle the US government out of millions of dollars for his absurd scheme is a testament to the stupidity of the members of congress who supported it. (No news there, I guess).
No one has even stopped to think about the implication of the scheme if it could work. Can you imagine what would happen if you actually had hundreds of these things flying about the city, flown not by professional pilots, but by the same idiots you have to deal with on the freeway every day? Now assume half of them are talking on their cell phones. The term "fender bender" takes on a whole new meaning, doesn't it?
I used to do aviation photography, and the attached photos were taken in about 1979 by my friend and photographer Jim Larsen from the back seat of my T-6, just off the beach at Edmonds (see the oil tanks). We arranged this after the airshow at Paine Field when the performers were heading home. Notice the Harrier exhaust nozzles are pointed down - he was basically in hover mode to fly with these slower airplanes, and the lift is all provided by the thrust, so the fuel consumption is horrendous (not to mention the noise!).
I can recall an article many, many years ago that discussed the engines in some detail, presumably based on information supplied by Moller. I don't doubt the engines have been modified for their use in his machine, but you can bet Moller didn't "design them himself" - the moving parts are definitely off the shelf items. Hell, if he designed and built it from scratch they woud never get all 8 running at once. Of course as time goes by, he no doubt claims to have designed and built everything to justify the outrageous amounts of money that have gone down this rathole. The amazing thing to me is that so many engineers, people who should know the claims are impossible, seem to go along with this thing. A P-51 Mustang will go the distance Moller claims, and do it at 350 mph, but it gets about 3 miles per gallon in the process. And it needs a 5,000 foot runway.
I remember when the Air Force claimed its first supersonic bomber, the B-58, would go at twice the speed of sound, fly at 70,000 feet, and fly 2500 miles. In fact it would do all those things, but it sure as hell wouldn't do them all at once!
"But the biggest scam ever is the bush whitehouse scam... they are scaming america "
Lucky for you we live here where we have free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of information, etc. Well, actually, there are a few minor problems as described here:
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/1748...ety_bush_style
I remember when the Air Force claimed its first supersonic bomber, the B-58, would go at twice the speed of sound, fly at 70,000 feet, and fly 2500 miles. In fact it would do all those things, but it sure as hell wouldn't do them all at once!
"But the biggest scam ever is the bush whitehouse scam... they are scaming america "
Lucky for you we live here where we have free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of information, etc. Well, actually, there are a few minor problems as described here:
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/1748...ety_bush_style
I love that photo, right over my home town.
Now was that the year the two snowbirds splashed into the sound.
I agree 100% i think this moller(sp?) is just a nut job. Hes either wasing his money on a project that he probably figures will never work, or he doesn't acctually see it as a waste.
My guess is hes like branson..........a media *****
Now was that the year the two snowbirds splashed into the sound.
I agree 100% i think this moller(sp?) is just a nut job. Hes either wasing his money on a project that he probably figures will never work, or he doesn't acctually see it as a waste.
My guess is hes like branson..........a media *****
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
