Flying Cars Ready To Take Off 819
Ant writes "CBS News has an article, images, and a free streaming video clip of Elwood (Woody) Norris' invention of a working flying machine, AirScooter. He asked one of his test pilots to demonstrate it for 60 Minutes on a hilltop outside San Diego, California. It can fly for 2 hours at 55 mph, and go up to 10,000 feet above sea level. This week, he will receive America's top prize for invention. It's called the Lemelson-MIT award -- a half-million dollar cash prize to honor his life's work, which includes a brand new personal flying machine.
Woody Norris' and others' inventions are for NASA's 'The Highway in the Sky.' It is a computer system designed to let millions of people fly whenever they please, and take off and land from wherever they please, in their very own vehicles."
Skycar (Score:5, Informative)
Needle hits E (Score:3, Informative)
Hoverboards mathematically possible, anyway.. (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.amazing1.com/grav.htm
There's some good stuff out there, and some people have gotten decent lift results with ion containment approaches.
Re:The two reasons these didn't take off *ages* ag (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Skycar (Score:3, Informative)
I recall reading about the Moller sky car in Popular Science years ago (5? 10? 15? it was a long time ago;) except then it was a 7 engine beast able to fly 400mph, get 20 mpg with 4 passenagers, along with VTOL. I guess that was merely a paper proposal, although it wasn't presented as such.
Re:Fifteen years is nothing.... (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Skycar (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Skycar (Score:2, Informative)
http://news.com.com/Get+ready+for+the+AirScooter/
Re:Skycar (Score:5, Informative)
Really, it's quite amazing what he's accomplished, and has to be the first to market on these things. I can only wonder why it's never "taken off" (pun only slightly intended.)
I want to say I've heard him mention that being the first to market on something so "seemingly" dangerous was his downfall, but I could be misquoting.
Interesting aside: Moller has acres and acres of pecan trees, which he eats as a staple of his diet, because he believes they slow the aging process (and he's quite old now indeed.)
-9mm-
Re:Fuel Efficiency and Oil Dependence (Score:5, Informative)
It also says 2hrs flight time, 55knots (approx 60mph), on 5 gallons. That is >20mpg, which would definitely be better than the worst SUVs.
Re:Just what the world needs (Score:3, Informative)
And then you say "let it lapse". Your certificate is good for a lifetime, unless they take it away from you. No expiration date.
Maybe what you meant is "let your currency lapse", by not taking the required AFR/BFR, and/or not getting a new medical certificate.
Yeah, you probably meant all this, but as a PP-ASEL-IA with 270 hours, I can't let the terminology be that sloppy. {grin}
RTFA Re:Needle hits E (Score:3, Informative)
First, it doesn't say anything about using rotary engines, their website shows a 2 piston 4-stroke engine.
Second, the reliability of many rotary engines was shortened by idiot owners who didn't know how to treat them. This was really only an issue with the 3rd generation RX-7. Heat generated by twin-turbo charging caused a lot of the 1993-1995 cars to have premature engine failure. However this is not the case for other rotary cars which without the turbos last hundreds of thousands of miles. Even many 3rd gen cars have gone well over 100,000 miles without rebuild which is roughly equal to running 1700 hours on an airplane. Check out the recommended rebuild schedules for airplane motors and many range from 1200-2000 hours. Really sounds like reliability is an issue doesn't it?
Third, check out http://www.rotaryaviation.com/ and http://www.atkinsrotary.com to see why you are so wrong to judge what happened in your brother's car and jump to the conclusion they are not good for airplane use. The mazda rotary is probably the most used auto engine in aviation BECAUSE IT IS RELIABLE.
Re:Hiller XH-44 clone (Score:3, Informative)
See eg.
image link [airscooter.com]
Doing the Math (Score:4, Informative)
""Well, I've done the math. I think it's a modest number if you could sell a couple thousand, when you look at snowmobiles and quads and those things -- not cars," says Norris. "That's a big market. But if we sold say a couple thousand, $50,000 a piece, that's a billion dollars." "
Uh no that would be 100 million dollars.
Re:Skycar (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I'm surprised these haven't happened sooner. (Score:3, Informative)
=Smidge=
Track record (Score:3, Informative)
(It talks about designing the first sucessful pacemaker implant, which is true only if "sucessful" is taken as "working for more than 9 months." If the time limit is set to anything less, the inventor is suddenly swedish...)
Re:yeah Yeah, anyrthing but PR buzz? (Score:5, Informative)
It's mostly about Norris' "AirScooter", NOT Moller's Skycar, and Norris DID demo the AirScooter, with a 60 minute flight in front of press.
It may not be in a dealership near you yet, but it really does fly, it's not vapor.
*Sure* they are... (Score:4, Informative)
It ain't happening, folks. Now and then these guys might pick up an award or snowball another big team of journalists into reporting on their work, but safe, reliable, affordable flying cars that get reasonable fuel economy aren't going to happen any time soon. And when they do, they'll be tied up in regulatory and insurance messes for years, continuing to prevent wide adoption. At the rate this stuff is moving, by the these designs are ready for the market and the market is ready, the fossil fuels needed to run them will cost so much that people won't want them, and we'll get to wait another twenty years for hydrogen-powered models to arrive.
Re:Whenever they please? (Score:5, Informative)
What about the people whose houses these things are going to fall on when people without the skills required for a current private pilots license decide that "whenever they please" means during thunderstorms or when the clouds are generating ice or when the wind is gusting to 90 knots?
Most likely you'll need a license and insurance in order to operate these things. In fact, mandatory insurance makes even more sense for these things then it does for cars. It's pretty easy to keep a car on the road. Keeping a plane in the sky is impossible to do with 100% certainty, no matter how skilled you are.
lawyers will likely profit (Score:2, Informative)
Every time a new transportation technology gains widespread adoption the legal regime has to incorporate the fact that people are injuring one another in novel, previously unforeseen ways.
Much of US tort law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort_law [wikipedia.org] was developed from litigation regarding railroads. Early railroads were always either injuring people directly, or sparking off and causing fires here and there.
We've got a massive compulsory insurance scheme for cars but that doesn't prevent all the litigation as anyone who's seen a lawyer commercial can attest.
I'd bet that there'll initially be some higher legal standard of care one would need to exercise since flying is inherently more dangerous than driving. If the tech improves so that it's mostly autopilot, then that might not be the case.
Not necessarily - future fuel will be a problem (Score:5, Informative)
That would only be true for a given mass. There are diesel powered airplanes in production [diamond-air.at] that get the equivalent of 20-30 mpg (US). Compare this to a Ford Excursion or Chevy Suburban and you will see that the airplane is actually more economical in fuel usage. It may well be more economical in total energy picture, factoring in manufacturing as well.
In addition, the DA40TDI runs on diesel. It is not currently certified to operate on biodiesel, but there is probably no technical reason it could not do so. (Yeah, yeah, the standard arguments against biodiesel like supposedly taking up all of our farmland to grow fuel, blah blah blah)
So your blanket statement does not hold up even with present technology.
Re:perhaps a cultural difference? (Score:3, Informative)
For both British and American counters a 'couple' thousand multiplied by $50,000 would be roughly one-hundred-million dollars depending on how strict or loose the person was being with a 'couple.'
McDonalds Low Fat Flying (Score:3, Informative)
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....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 remember when this first came out, and the inventor claimed on a TV program also that these engines (unmanned versions already in use by municipalities working on bridges and such) can also run on extremely alternative fuels. I remember he specifically said that it could even run on "used McDonald's fry vat grease". In my opinion, this kind of rubust and effecient engine (in terms of flying engine effeciency) is exactly what the world needs. If someone can link to the alternative fuel use information from long ago, I would enjoy reading it again.
Re:Fifteen years is nothing.... (Score:3, Informative)
You know of ONE place like that? If you've ever been to downtown Seattle, pretty much every place is like that. In some places you can see two or three from one.
Re:At what price though? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Headline is wrong (Score:5, Informative)
They're not. At 500 feet above the highest obstacle, (1000 feet over a built up area), the skies are open (subject to air traffic regs). If you don't want people flying over your property, you'll have to apply to the FAA to declare your property restricted airspace. Good luck.
(Below the above altitudes, you can report such aircraft to the FAA, unless they're on approach to or departure from an airport.)
(Oh, and if you feel like just putting up a 500 foot tower to raise the "floor", better make sure you've got approval, lest the FAA declare it a hazard to navigation and make you take it down.)
Re:Skycar - future fuel will be a problem (Score:4, Informative)
No, it isn't.
There are far too many variables involved to make such a blanket statement: L/D ratio of the aircraft, mass, rolling resistance and air drag of the ground vehicle, terrain, speeds, stopping and starting, etc, etc.
As an extreme example, consider what kind of gas mileage a glider gets, even counting whatever gas is used to tow (or propel, for a motor-glider) it to altitude. Compare that to an SUV with under-inflated tires. Even a (non-gliding) Cessna gets better gas mileage than an SUV (I don't recall the exact numbers of the top of my head, aircraft fuel consumption is listed in gallons (or sometimes pounds) per hour.)
Now, something that relies on a fan instead of a wing for lift probably will have higher consumption, but you're blanket statement is simply false.
Re:Skycar (Score:4, Informative)
I've seen similar demonstrations before. The tether is necessary for liability insurance. If the prototype were to malfunction, the tether is necessary to contain any possible damage. Whether it would be possible to rig a demonstration with the tether I will leave for an exercise for the tin-foil-hat crowd.
Re:Skycar - future fuel will be a problem (Score:4, Informative)
Re:400 feet but it goes to 10k! (Score:5, Informative)
It's even worse when you're flying a powered aircraft, especially in crowded airspace. Not only are you navigating in 3 dimensions (Which actually is pretty easy to get used to) but you have to keep an eye out for other vehicles up to two or three MILES off and above or below you and follow air traffic control's instructions when they tell you to do something. Overall the amount of bullshit you have to put up with makes the occasional speed trap on the ground look pretty inviting.
In the end, the flying car experience will be a lot different from what most people imagine. I wouldn't be surprised if the only way it would be allowed would be with a computer controlled navigation system that had no allowance for manual override. Some people might opt to move up to pilots licenses for a craft they could manually control, but that would be about the equivalent of a CB radio enthusiast moving up to a ham license -- most people won't want to and it will bring as many new restrictions as it does newfound freedom.
Re:Ok, I'll define it (Score:5, Informative)
Some are sloppier than others - depends on which one. No one will argue what a dozen means, most people ar clueless about a peck... couple, & few depend on who you are talking to. Not to mention some words have always had two meanings... one being ambiguous
1/10 = gry1 = single
2 = couple
3 = few
4 = gang
5 = punch
6 = half dozen
7 = several
8 = peck / basket
9 = bunch
10 = carton / minyan
11 = short dozen
12 = dozen
13 = long dozen / baker's dozen
14 = fort
16 = kenning / half bushel
20 = score
24 = case
32 = bushel
144 = gross
1728 = great gross
Re:Skycar (Score:3, Informative)
More details here: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/av-8.htm
Re:Obvious, but should be said. (Score:1, Informative)
In form it's really just an ultra-lite chopper which has been available in different forms for a while.
In functon, No cyclic no foot pedals. That's pretty significant and makes it much easier to fly than a traditional chopper.
The vehicle itself will no more revolutionize personal travel (ie flying car) than the Segway scooter did.
Re:Fifteen years is nothing.... (Score:3, Informative)
Yes. This place is called the End of the Universe.
Re:Conserving Money is an Absurd Notion (Score:2, Informative)
Wrong.
For all practical purposes it is an unlimited resource.
With breeder reactors and the ability to extract uranium from the sea we are looking at billions of years before we run out.
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen
http://www.nuclearfaq.ca/cnf_sectionG.htm#uranium
Re:Conserving Money is an Absurd Notion (Score:2, Informative)
I don't understand your 'scalability and longevity issue'. There is enough uranium in sea water with the use of breeder reactors to potentially last us billions of years.
http://www.nuclearfaq.ca/cnf_sectionG.htm#uranium
We've proven over the decades from the hundreds of nuclear reactors have been providing power all over the world that we can handle the process safely (more people die in coal-mining cave-ins than ever died from nuclear power plants. There is no such thing as a 100% safe energy system, or car, or soft-cushy-pillow for that matter. However compared to _any_ other energy source currently available nuclear seems very clearly to be the safest.)
Re:At what price though? (Score:2, Informative)
It is different from a traditional tiny helicopter in its much simplified controls (and in the way the flight surfaces are actuated). And since it can legally only hold a maximum of 5 gallons of fuel, they have squeezed some good performance out of it.
I don't know what the vehicle's failure modes and safety features are. If you lose the engine, I am not sure if you can autorotate (or whether you just plummet to your death and have rotor blades flying apart and mincing nearby people and cows).
The sales hype is that since it's an Ultralight aircraft, you can fly it in unrestricted airspace without a pilot's license.
You can't commute in the AirScooter. Ultralight aircraft can only be operated in the daylight (between official sunrise/sunset), by VFR, and in decent weather (no clouds, one mile visibility minimum) -- and only for limited purposes. The regulations say "recreation or sport purposes only". I don't know if, for example, commuting to work would be considered "sport" by the FAA, but I suppose that would depend on how many other AirScooters you were competing with for the airspace. Not what they had in mind, though.
It's worth noting that there is not actually much uncontrolled airspace, unless you live in pretty rural locations. (Never mind class G airspace: you can't operate Ultralights within even the lateral boundaries of class E, which most pilots don't even notice is all over the place.) And in no case can you fly (at any altitude) over towns where people live ("congested area") or over any open-air assembly of people. So unless you have a really huge back yard, you'll have to go out in the country a little bit.
It has floats and apparently you can land it on the water. Maybe we can get the AirScooter pilots together with the WaveRunner pilots for some real action. (I expect to see this on some Amazingly Stupid Stunts video.)
Despite all the limitations, it looks like a pretty darn fun toy. I want one!
Re:Headline is wrong (Score:2, Informative)
Most people don't have to worry about any AirScooters flying over them.
Someday when we actually get flying cars, the rules will necessarily be all different.
__________
Where are the flying cars? We were promised flying cars!