NationStates Jolt Archive

What do you think? How long till they are available to the public? How much will they cost? I can't wait to see these things zoomign around.

M200 at NextFest 2004
http://www.moller.com/news/hoverstills/nextfest.jpg

M400 Hover Test
http://www.moller.com/news/hoverstills/minTether.jpg

Stockholder Flight Demonstration (October 2002)
http://www.moller.com/news/hoverstills/stockdemo.jpg

In flight vids:
http://media.moller.com/m200xdsl.ram
http://media.moller.com/Hover_M400_20020702.ram
http://media.moller.com/Flight030111-320WebMovie.mp4
http://media.moller.com/Flight030323-320WebMovie.mp4


M400 Skycar

Moller has developed, built, and flown a two passenger prototype model of a volantor called the M200X. The volantor is a new type of aircraft that combines the performance of airplanes and the VTOL capability of helicopters in a single vehicle without the limitations of either.

Using a principle similar to that of the British Harrier jump jet, the Moller Skycar volantor incorporates a patented thrust deflection vane system that redirects thrust, enabling it to hover or to takeoff and land vertically from almost any surface. This capability plus the added safety of ducted fans makes it ideal for a wide variety of commercial and military applications. These include private and charter air travel, express delivery, news gathering, border patrol, police and fire work, and search and rescue, to name just a few.

Passengers: 4
Top speed @ 25,000 ft: 350 mph
Cruise speed @ 25,000 ft (80% Max Range): 315 mph
Cruise speed @ 25,000 ft (Max Range): 205 mph
Cruise speed @ Sea Level (Max Range): 140 mph
Maximum rate of climb: 5100 fpm
Maximum range: 750 miles
Net payload: 750 lbs
Fuel consumption: approx. 20 mpg
Operational ceiling: 32,000 ft
Gross weight: 2400 lbs
Installed engine power: 865 hp
Power boost (emergency): 33%
Dimensions (LxWxH): 21.5' x 8.5' x 7.5'
Takeoff and landing area: 35 ft dia
Noise level at 500 ft: 65 dba (Goal)
Vertical takeoff and landing: yes
Uses automotive gas: yes
Emergency parachutes: yes


________________OH YEAH______________________

this is how they started in 1962:
http://www.moller.com/skycar/xm2/xm2.jpg

then in 1966:
http://www.moller.com/skycar/xm3/xm3.jpg

looking at 1974:
http://www.moller.com/skycar/xm4/xm4.jpg

1989:
http://www.moller.com/skycar/m200x/m200x-airborne.jpg

God I hope it works out. They will need to get rid of that annoying cord on the back though. And something that's fuel efficient will be a must (it will undoubtedly be expensive, big companies and the military won't want to waste fuel on it). And I'm sure if it doesn't run on a type of fuel that isn't a pollutant there'll be protests up the wazzoo.

God I hope it works out. They will need to get rid of that annoying cord on the back though. And something that's fuel efficient will be a must (it will undoubtedly be expensive, big companies and the military won't want to waste fuel on it). And I'm sure if it doesn't run on a type of fuel that isn't a pollutant there'll be protests up the wazzoo.

That cord is required during the tests for safety so it doesnt fly off and hit someone in the audience.

Yes right now it runs on automotive gas, but I think I read somewhere that they were producing engines that ran on corn-based fuel that was less polluting and got better mileage. Although I can't find that now so I don't remember where I found it.

I can't wait to see police and rescue crews using these as well.

Ahhh I hope to see it on the market within 10 years.

I can't believe that noone is interested in discussions about flying cars.

I can't believe that noone is interested in discussions about flying cars.

I think they're more concerned about getting gas prices cheaper so they can finally drive/get that SUV they always wanted.

Flying car technology is ... well it's old.

The problems with flying car technology is two fold.

The first has to do with the fact that you can't pave the sky, like you can pave the land. The ability of roads to limit land dirver's actions is a significant stabalizing effect for land cars. When this is removed (as in the case of sea traffic) it can be very confusing and complex even when the number of people using the system is small. Taking this to three dimensions only makes the problem worse.

The second has to do with the fact that you need to make the system fool proof because you will be throwing fools into the sky. Based on the idiots and morons I see driving the land routes around me, I woudn't want any of these dangers on the highway anyway near the skyway.

Modern technology could easily overcome the second problem, and those example flying cars are close to doing this. The first problem, enforcing the rules of the air might be a harder problem.

Your average driver can barely concentrate on the task at hand to keep directional control and awareness of their vehicle in two planes.

Air cars?

Picture that same idiot you see daily on their morning commute drinking their coffee, eating their bagel, talking on their call phone, reading the newspaper, and trimming their nose-hairs all while flying in an urban setting.... and then watch for the "fender benders" to start raining down onto the city below you.


They will NEVER happen.

I believe that once the cars are in the air, computers will be doing the flying.

That is how I saw it presented anyway. I don't want average citizens flying either.

They are already working on skyway routes though. I don't see that as a problem

As energy costs soar though, wouldn't it make more sense to automate ground traffic than to also have to deal with the expense of keeping the car up in the air?

I mean, if you don't actually get to pilot it - what would be the point besides novelty? And who is going to enforce airworthyness standards on the craft? I know people who haven't done an oil change in years let alone keep an aviation engine up to spec.

Your average driver can barely concentrate on the task at hand to keep directional control and awareness of their vehicle in two planes.

Air cars?

Picture that same idiot you see daily on their morning commute drinking their coffee, eating their bagel, talking on their call phone, reading the newspaper, and trimming their nose-hairs all while flying in an urban setting.... and then watch for the "fender benders" to start raining down onto the city below you.


They will NEVER happen.
nah. tech solves all. except stupidity. c.c

Your average driver can barely concentrate on the task at hand to keep directional control and awareness of their vehicle in two planes.

Air cars?

Picture that same idiot you see daily on their morning commute drinking their coffee, eating their bagel, talking on their call phone, reading the newspaper, and trimming their nose-hairs all while flying in an urban setting.... and then watch for the "fender benders" to start raining down onto the city below you.


They will NEVER happen.

Zep, they already have some cars that'll DRIVE themselves basically on certain highways in California.

http://www.fact-index.com/a/au/automated_highway_system.html

Now, these use automated highways, but in the distant future, they may have something to autopilot the flying cars.

As energy costs soar though, wouldn't it make more sense to automate ground traffic than to also have to deal with the expense of keeping the car up in the air?

I mean, if you don't actually get to pilot it - what would be the point besides novelty? And who is going to enforce airworthyness standards on the craft? I know people who haven't done an oil change in years let alone keep an aviation engine up to spec.

that is a good point. I think we can create a renewable fuel soure for it though, which should be cheaper.

if you dont get to pilot it then you can do things liek watch the scenery and talk on yoru cell phone or do yoru make up and read the paper. I would rather not pilot my own car.

And if you are paying a million dollars for the car or even 100,000 for it I am sure you will have an awesome warranty.

nah. tech solves all. except stupidity. c.c

Well, it IS that stupidity quotient that is the worry.... the stupidity of the average driver.


And while I am aware of the ongoing tests of automated roads, the big problem is mindset. People like to drive. A twisty road and a sport car is more of a hobby than a means of transportation.

Can it be done technologically?

Yes. Of Course.

Will it sell?

Consider having to revamp every city core to accomodate parking for airborne vehicles. Consider the issues of managing traffic in and around the buildings of Manhatten. Consider the fuel costs to be stuck hovering at rush hour. Consider the damage caused by any failure leading to a crash in an urban setting (wind gusts/wind shear around buildings).

View the scenery? Even that would wear thin after the first week of taking the same route to work and back every day. And the truly rich already have this sort of option. They are called helicopters.

Building a totally automated road system might be a feasible sell over the next forty years, but even then I doubt it. Long term it may become the only way to go, but I don't think people are all that willing to give up their control over their vehicle yet.

I'd say at least 10 years, and more likely 15 to 25 years, before they get approval and become commercially available. Probably another 10 to 25 years before they gain acceptance beyond mere toys. So, a range of 20 to 50 years til they are as common as other aircraft.
As for price, small private aircraft such as Cessnas, Beechcrafts, or Pipers, run a minimum of $75,000 - used. New, those same aircraft run between $200,000 and $600,000. Considering that the technology is brand new and the initial market is going to be very, very small, I'd say 1 to 5 million at least, comming down to 300 to 500 thousand eventually.

From what I have read, parking will be teh same as any other car.

Youw ill not just be able to land in a parking lot... you will land somewhere that is especially designed for these cars and then drive to yoru destination.

Viewing the scenery is just one of the options you have. and you wont only be taking your car to work although getting to work in a matter of a few minutes as opposed to an hour sounds mighty appealing (also this may make your list of available jobs widen as you can go further to work in less time. and think of all teh money you would save on airline flights if you take lots of business trips). Flying to Vegas to Los Angeles would take like an hour probably which sounds mighty appealing too (replace these points with any 4 or 5 hour drive), and one tank of gas should get you there and back.

I don't see rush hours happening because there will still be land-based cars predominately. Plus you can fly at different altitudes to avoid such things and it will all be computer driven.

Sure lots of people like to drive and so then they can buy a land-based car instead. I'm sure you will know what youa re getting into when you purchase a skycar.

I agree with the rish of crashes though.