Moller gets competition!

[Rob Turk]

Let's scrap our puny little planes, the future is here:
http://www.taero.com/

Go, go Gadget Wings!

Rob

[Ron Natalie]

"Rob Turk" > wrote in message . nl...
> Let's scrap our puny little planes, the future is here:
> http://www.taero.com/
>
> Go, go Gadget Wings!
>
Chortle. When you click on "What the experts say" the only "expert" you get is the
founder of the company. And "Dr." Ikeler is a vetrinarian!

This looks like the classic "we'll get the money first" and then we'll figure we can give
some tiny amount to someone to invent the technology. Their site seems to also
want to install bogus things on my machine, be careful when you go there.

[Ray Toews]

There was an intersting article on CBC radio Quirks and Quarks
http://radio.cbc.ca/programs/quirks/, Sat. 6 Dec about flight and
where it was going. There was a fellow on named Dennis Bushnell who
said he worked at Dryden. he talked about a new transportation system
which sounded very Mollerish. My question is, because he works at
Dryden do I give him more credability or is it still pie in the sky?

Ray Toews
On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 13:33:08 -0500, "Ron Natalie" >
wrote:

>
>"Rob Turk" > wrote in message . nl...
>> Let's scrap our puny little planes, the future is here:
>> http://www.taero.com/
>>
>> Go, go Gadget Wings!
>>
>Chortle. When you click on "What the experts say" the only "expert" you get is the
>founder of the company. And "Dr." Ikeler is a vetrinarian!
>
>This looks like the classic "we'll get the money first" and then we'll figure we can give
>some tiny amount to someone to invent the technology. Their site seems to also
>want to install bogus things on my machine, be careful when you go there.
>
>

[Eric Miller]

<Ray Toews> wrote in message ...
> There was an intersting article on CBC radio Quirks and Quarks
> http://radio.cbc.ca/programs/quirks/, Sat. 6 Dec about flight and
> where it was going. There was a fellow on named Dennis Bushnell who
> said he worked at Dryden. he talked about a new transportation system
> which sounded very Mollerish. My question is, because he works at
> Dryden do I give him more credability or is it still pie in the sky?
>
> Ray Toews

If you mean "Highway in the Sky" then NASA definitely has some programs
related to that, and has for a long time.

If you mean "Flying Cars for the Masses", you might wanna see if he'll sell
you a spare Brooklyn Bridge first.

Eric

[Jay]

Ray Toews wrote in message >...
> There was a fellow on named Dennis Bushnell who
> said he worked at Dryden. he talked about a new transportation system
> which sounded very Mollerish. My question is, because he works at
> Dryden do I give him more credability or is it still pie in the sky?

I've been out there on occasion and you got all types, from certified
genius to just plain certifiable. Did he say what he was doing for
them out there in the desert at Edwards? But I say encourage the guy,
its not my money, and maybe they'll learn something we can all use.

[Dan Thomas]

There's another whole generation out there waiting to be reeled in by
a Moller-type "entrepreneur." They are tired of waiting for Moller to
start deliveries and need somewhere to pay for a dream that will never
come true.
This one looks like the wing was added as an afterthought. What
kind of interference drag do you suppose exists between it and the
roof of the "fuselage?" If they took off that wing they could sell the
rest of it to Chrysler for next year's lineup.

Dan

[Ron Natalie]

"Dan Thomas" > wrote in message om...
> There's another whole generation out there waiting to be reeled in by
> a Moller-type "entrepreneur." They are tired of waiting for Moller to
> start deliveries and need somewhere to pay for a dream that will never
> come true.

I just wonder if that 58 year old woman they sold the first one to will live long enough
to see it.

[Ernest Christley]

Ron Natalie wrote:
> "Dan Thomas" > wrote in message om...
>
>>There's another whole generation out there waiting to be reeled in by
>>a Moller-type "entrepreneur." They are tired of waiting for Moller to
>>start deliveries and need somewhere to pay for a dream that will never
>>come true.
>
>
> I just wonder if that 58 year old woman they sold the first one to will live long enough
> to see it.
>
>

I've got to quit looking for a real job and bone up on my Photoshop
skills. Then I can 'invent' the next car in the sky and be rich.

--
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
"Ignorance is mankinds normal state,
alleviated by information and experience."
Veeduber

Well, I thought I had seen it all, but I'll let you judge...
I got this from one of these newsgroups, but I am not sure which one.
http://www.protoscience.com/protobike.html
It's GOTTA BE a joke, but who knows...
The "products" in this WEB site don't even qualify as "vaporware", they are
flat and purely simply "BULL****WARE"
(just read about the "ProtoModem", my GOD this idiot doesn't even have a
clue about FCC regulations!!! )

By the mean time, the only shot at a viable flying car still is:
http://www.aerocar.com

I met this guy personally (he has a hangar full of cool toys at 00V) and it
seems that he is quietly advancing in his concept.
At least seems simple enough and "been there, done that..."
Enrique A. Troconis
CFI @ stevensonairport.com

[George Vranek]

> wrote in message
...
> Well, I thought I had seen it all, but I'll let you judge...
> I got this from one of these newsgroups, but I am not sure which one.
> http://www.protoscience.com/protobike.html
> It's GOTTA BE a joke, but who knows...
> The "products" in this WEB site don't even qualify as "vaporware", they
are
> flat and purely simply "BULL****WARE"
> (just read about the "ProtoModem", my GOD this idiot doesn't even have a
> clue about FCC regulations!!! )
>
> By the mean time, the only shot at a viable flying car still is:
> http://www.aerocar.com
>
> I met this guy personally (he has a hangar full of cool toys at 00V) and
it
> seems that he is quietly advancing in his concept.
> At least seems simple enough and "been there, done that..."
> Enrique A. Troconis
> CFI @ stevensonairport.com
>
On the www.vranek.ch/aerocar.htm is shown another flying car idea called
Porsche Skymaster. It is a Porsche 911 Turbo car equipped with the wing and
twin tail of a Cessna Skymaster. The pusher prop is driven by the Porsche
(400 hp) engine via an inverted Z-drive. The "aeroplane part" of this
aerocar is easily removable and stays on the airfield while the "car part"
drives to the city....

George Vranek
Retired aeronautical engineer and hobby flyer

[R. Hubbell]

On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 12:25:06 +0100 "Rob Turk" > wrote:

> Let's scrap our puny little planes, the future is here:
> http://www.taero.com/
>
> Go, go Gadget Wings!
>
> Rob
>
>

Competition to produce nothing marketable. I guess that's a form of
competition. These projects never seem to get off the ground. It's
just not gonna fly. These guys have there heads in the clouds. They're
working by the seat of their pants. (did I miss any?)


R. Hubbell

[Tim Ward]

"R. Hubbell" > wrote in message
news:yQvBb.29424$ZE1.619@fed1read04...
> On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 12:25:06 +0100 "Rob Turk" >
wrote:
>
> > Let's scrap our puny little planes, the future is here:
> > http://www.taero.com/
> >
> > Go, go Gadget Wings!
> >
> > Rob
> >
> >
>
> Competition to produce nothing marketable. I guess that's a form of
> competition. These projects never seem to get off the ground. It's
> just not gonna fly. These guys have there heads in the clouds. They're
> working by the seat of their pants. (did I miss any?)
>
>
> R. Hubbell

I think they're working by the clouds, and have their heads in the seat of
their pants.

Tim Ward

[Corrie]

Ernest Christley > wrote in message >...

> I've got to quit looking for a real job and bone up on my Photoshop
> skills. Then I can 'invent' the next car in the sky and be rich.

Photoshop you just use to add the background. What you really want is
3D Studio Max...

[Mark Hickey]

"Tim Ward" > wrote:

>I think they're working by the clouds, and have their heads in the seat of
>their pants.

They'd better keep 'em there - sticking them up in the 300mph
slipstream like the guy in the (doctored) photo isn't a good idea at
all.

Mark Hickey

[James M. Knox]

> wrote in
:

> http://www.protoscience.com/protobike.html
> It's GOTTA BE a joke, but who knows...
> The "products" in this WEB site don't even qualify as "vaporware",
> they are flat and purely simply "BULL****WARE"
> (just read about the "ProtoModem", my GOD this idiot doesn't even have
> a clue about FCC regulations!!! )

What? You don't want to do 1 megabit per second plus, on a dialup??? <G>

Or the open case multi-terabyte hard drive?

The address is Anaheim - maybe they've been spending too much time in the
Magic Kingdom. [Did you notice that you can sign up for "exclusive
territories" as a dealer! Get in on the ground floor. And, looking at
their flying motorcycle, I'd say *ground* is probably fairly accurate.]

-----------------------------------------------
James M. Knox
TriSoft ph 512-385-0316
1109-A Shady Lane fax 512-366-4331
Austin, Tx 78721
-----------------------------------------------

[Ron Natalie]

"James M. Knox" > wrote in message ...

> Or the open case multi-terabyte hard drive?
>
Well their drives (which might some day be ugradable at some unspecified cost) to a larger
capacity, aren't priced very competitively to dumb drives of similar specs (running just about
$1/gigabyte for 7200 RPM ATA drives).

[BllFs6]

Hi all...


This topic got me thinking about "aerocars" and during a night of tossing and
turning it occurred to me....

Most (if not all) aerocar "inventors" have their approach backwards....

They are trying to take a CAR and make it into a plane....

Which isnt impossible.....as long as your plane is capable of being say 750 to
1500 pounds overwieght......which means you need a REALLY big plane to absorb
that kinda fat and/or your gonna have a plane that sucks performance wise (ie
barely flies)...

And they want to take car drivers and make them into pilots.....todays drivers
expect all kinds of luxuries.....lots of room, ac, stereo, big cushy seats,
tire burning amounts of HP etc etc....which all adds way too much wieght....

And besides anything shaped like a car is still gonna bite drag wise.......

So Lets turn this around!

Lets take pilots and make them car drivers....

Any ground "vehicle" that is even a bit quiter or roomier than most small
planes would keep a pilot happy......if they had virtually ANYTHING to drive
other than a bike when they got where they were going they would be thrilled...

So, instead....lets take a plane and make it into a car.....

And it seems to me the most obvious config for that is a canard design......

Make the front canards removable or configurable so that the provide 0/negative
lift when used in "car" mode......

make the front of the canard plane "breakable" about where the the rear wings
start....and thats where your gonna put 2 "rear " wheels....

Now you have a decently areodynamic 3 wheeled motorcyle/trike.....

For such a lightwieght ground vehicle you probably only need 10hp give or take
for decent acceleration and top speeds.....

What about an engine you say?

Screw messing with the aircraft engine....which would entail all sorts of heavy
drives/clutches/transmissions/removable parts/doing scary things to your very
important aircraft engine....and just generally doing things aircraft engines
arent designed/meant to do....

Instead, lets just carry a small 2nd engine to move our chopped off front of
the plane around.......

You could use a 2 stroke ultralight engine.....one model offered is roughly
27hp and weighs about 50 lbs....it might even have enough hp/torque to drive
your "car" with just a direct drive....or at worst a 2/3 speed
transmission/redrive.....

Now, obviously this "Burtan Trike" would be a death trapp if you got hit by
another car........but so are motorcyles....and small planes when you land very
badly for that matter....

So, if you went with something like this dont you think you could keep the
weight penalty down to say 200 lbs? over a straight airplane of similiar
design? more? maybe even less?

Just some wild thoughts here...

Blll

[ET]

(BllFs6) wrote in
:

> Hi all...
>
>
> This topic got me thinking about "aerocars" and during a night of
> tossing and turning it occurred to me....
>
> Most (if not all) aerocar "inventors" have their approach
> backwards....
>
> They are trying to take a CAR and make it into a plane....
>
> Which isnt impossible.....as long as your plane is capable of being
> say 750 to 1500 pounds overwieght......which means you need a REALLY
> big plane to absorb that kinda fat and/or your gonna have a plane that
> sucks performance wise (ie barely flies)...
>
> And they want to take car drivers and make them into pilots.....todays
> drivers expect all kinds of luxuries.....lots of room, ac, stereo, big
> cushy seats, tire burning amounts of HP etc etc....which all adds way
> too much wieght....
>
> And besides anything shaped like a car is still gonna bite drag
> wise.......
>
> So Lets turn this around!
>
> Lets take pilots and make them car drivers....
>
> Any ground "vehicle" that is even a bit quiter or roomier than most
> small planes would keep a pilot happy......if they had virtually
> ANYTHING to drive other than a bike when they got where they were
> going they would be thrilled...
>
> So, instead....lets take a plane and make it into a car.....
>
> And it seems to me the most obvious config for that is a canard
> design......
>
> Make the front canards removable or configurable so that the provide
> 0/negative lift when used in "car" mode......
>
> make the front of the canard plane "breakable" about where the the
> rear wings start....and thats where your gonna put 2 "rear "
> wheels....
>
> Now you have a decently areodynamic 3 wheeled motorcyle/trike.....
>
> For such a lightwieght ground vehicle you probably only need 10hp give
> or take for decent acceleration and top speeds.....
>
> What about an engine you say?
>
> Screw messing with the aircraft engine....which would entail all sorts
> of heavy drives/clutches/transmissions/removable parts/doing scary
> things to your very important aircraft engine....and just generally
> doing things aircraft engines arent designed/meant to do....
>
> Instead, lets just carry a small 2nd engine to move our chopped off
> front of the plane around.......
>
> You could use a 2 stroke ultralight engine.....one model offered is
> roughly 27hp and weighs about 50 lbs....it might even have enough
> hp/torque to drive your "car" with just a direct drive....or at worst
> a 2/3 speed transmission/redrive.....
>
> Now, obviously this "Burtan Trike" would be a death trapp if you got
> hit by another car........but so are motorcyles....and small planes
> when you land very badly for that matter....
>
> So, if you went with something like this dont you think you could keep
> the weight penalty down to say 200 lbs? over a straight airplane of
> similiar design? more? maybe even less?
>
> Just some wild thoughts here...
>
> Blll
>

Ah, just blow off all that and carry one of these in the plane...

http://www.diblasi.com/home.htm ;-)

(even if it means you need to leave the wife at home to meet weight and
balance)

--
ET >:)


"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

[ahlbebuck]

Hello, Rob!
You wrote on Sun, 7 Dec 2003 12:25:06 +0100:

RT> Go, go Gadget Wings!

RT> Rob

straight from a vet! proof positive- mad cow disease is back.


With best regards, ahlbebuck. E-mail: