Air cars will never fly (911 more reasons)

[[email protected]]

Almost five years ago I started a thread critiquing the technological
and aesthetic problems associated with air cars, i.e. millions of
people duking it out in small aircraft instead of automobiles. See:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&q=%22Air+cars+will+never+fly%22

It was based on this man's (and other technophiles') naive, unworkable
vision of air cars replacing most ground traffic.

http://www.houstonspacesociety.org/whynotfly.htm

Back then, I was surprised to see so many defenders of this insanely
complex, unsafe, environmentally disruptive nightmare, but I think
today's new world has put the final nail in the coffin. I hope the
latest reason goes without saying! See subject line.

A.J.





ORIGINAL POST
Subject: Air cars will never fly
12-13-98 (sci.space.policy)

The article on the link below epitomizes the deluded "vision" of many
in the space-colonization movement. If the author thinks air-cars are
practical it's no wonder he thinks space-colonization as a means to
keep society sustainable is feasible too (see other links on the
site.)

http://www.houstonspacesociety.org/whynotfly.htm


Here are some obvious reasons why the air-car concept will never fly:

1) It takes FAR more energy to keep something in the air vs. on the
ground, where no energy must be expended to lift its mass. In the
article the author claims that guv'mint fuel regulations inspired him
to think of the air-car concept, but he is completely deluded. He
yearns for transportation that would create energy nightmares on a
much larger scale.

2) Accidents happen often enough with earthbound vehicles restricted
to lanes. If we expand transportation into the air, millions of
vehicles will have to dodge each other with no lane boundaries and a
third dimension as well. It would be complete mayhem. Driving skill
is poor enough as it is, and most accidents would probably be fatal.
Who would trust a naive 16, 18 or 21 year-old to fly and jeopardize
everyone's safety? What about the elderly or infirm who can barely
keep a car on the pavement? Even top pilots have to concentrate hard
to maneuver aircraft in congested situations.

3) When a mechanical breakdown occurs with an earthbound vehicle it
often just rolls to a stop, out of harm's way. But a breakdown in a
airborne vehicle would result is serious danger to anyone in the area.
Controlling air-cars with computers to prevent accidents makes no
sense since it negates the very freedom they are supposed to offer,
plus computer systems fail, and would inevitably cause tragedies in a
sky packed with cars.

4) Environmentally speaking (and this is where the author is really
nuts, since he was partially inspired by a desire for fewer roads)
air-cars would be a visual and auditory nightmare. With no clear
lanes we would have vehicles buzzing all over the place, ruining peace
and quiet and disrupting areas that were formerly safe from roads of
any kind. Wildlife would be routinely scared and you couldn't go
anywhere (or even sleep at night) for fear of a joyrider slamming into
you. It would be like opening the entire planet to airborne jet-skis.

5) There are close to 200 million cars and trucks in use in America
today, and to replace even a fraction of these with air-cars would be
completely impractical for many reasons (cost alone would be
staggering). One big issue is our dependence on trucks of all sizes
for hauling freight, which would be impractical in high speed flying
vehicles. The author claims that air-cars would allow us to tear up
paved routes that spoil natural scenery, but this would prevent the
movement of vital freight everywhere; totally unworkable. Tearing up
roads would be impossibly expensive and it would just leave erosion
scars.

6) Navigation in an air car would be a nightmare since it can be hard
enough to reach a destination with defined roads and street markings.
How would people know where they were, especially at night? How would
people park as well? Unless some magic anti-gravity propulsion is
developed we would be subject to annoying air-blasts every time
someone pulled into a Wal-Mart. The takeoff scenario after a major
crowd event would be a hopeless maze of flying objects as everyone
tried to leave first.

The author is a Libertarian who detests regulations, but air-cars
would demand more regulations than he could ever imagine. If anyone
thinks air-cars would be remotely practical (except as toys for the
wealthy) I'd like to see your arguments.

A.J. (reposted from 12-13-1998)

[Gilles KERMARC]

wrote:


> 6) Navigation in an air car would be a nightmare since it can be hard
> enough to reach a destination with defined roads and street markings.
> How would people know where they were, especially at night?

Heard about the GPS ?

[Peter Duniho]

> wrote in message
...
> Almost five years ago I started a thread critiquing the technological
> and aesthetic problems associated with air cars [...]
>
> Back then, I was surprised to see so many defenders of this insanely
> complex, unsafe, environmentally disruptive nightmare, but I think
> today's new world has put the final nail in the coffin.

You came back five years later just to say "I told you so"?

Not that I believe you really had that many people disagreeing with you
anyway. Not in the rec.aviation.piloting newsgroup. But doesn't your post
strike you as just a little petty?

Pete

[gatt]

"Gilles KERMARC" > wrote in message
news:bl4u58$ng1$1@news-

> > 6) Navigation in an air car would be a nightmare since it can be hard
> > enough to reach a destination with defined roads and street markings.
> > How would people know where they were, especially at night?
>
> Heard about the GPS ?

GPS is not an accepted form of primary instrument natigation, is it?

Plus...how would we hit raccoons and possum?!

-c

[Gilan]

well as the old saying goes never say never.
History has proven many things happened that were said would never.
We will probably be long dead in the ground but some form of air car will
someday exist and that is for sure.
--
Mitchell Wing
http://www.mitchellwing.com

Have a good day and stay out of the trees!
See ya on Sport Aircraft group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 23:06:51 +0200, Gilles KERMARC
> wrote:

wrote:
>
>
>> 6) Navigation in an air car would be a nightmare since it can be hard
>> enough to reach a destination with defined roads and street markings.
>> How would people know where they were, especially at night?
>
>Heard about the GPS ?

GPS was covered in some detail in the original 1998 thread. GPS just
isn't accurate or reliable enough for a lot of fast-moving objects in
a crowded space. I've used a GPS handheld extensively and would not
bet my life on its resolution of 14 feet, or even 1 foot if such
accuracy was possible for the public.

Besides, GPS is just one of many flaws in the concept.

A.J.

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 04:32:04 GMT, "Gilan" > wrote:

>well as the old saying goes never say never.
>History has proven many things happened that were said would never.
>We will probably be long dead in the ground but some form of air car will
>someday exist and that is for sure.

It already does, but it's not going anywhere: http://www.moller.com/

I could envision something (for light duty) that hovers near the
ground using some sort of antigravity, but I don't want congestion
shoved into the air creating eyesores and hazards far greater than
today's ground traffic.

A.J.

[Montblack]

("Peter Duniho" wrote)
<snip>
> You came back five years later just to say "I told you so"?


Seven years is the statute of limitations on *I told you so's* ...anything
after that falls under the asperses of unearthing repressed memories.

--
Montblack

[gmw]

Most of the crap charges levied against air cars (not safe disruptive,
unsightly, eco adverse, security risk ala 9-11) are the same charges levels
against automobiles by people who hate the fact that the auto underpins a
real expansion of the freedoms and horizons of the common folk.

If air cars happen they will grow slowly and an appropriate system of checks
and balances will emerge. Until then ponder this...

Air cars, when operational, shall be no less safe that any other mode of
transport. Ships sink. Cars and planes crash. Trains derail. Balloons
pop. Amish people get kicked, bit and thrown by their horses. All of these
things can be fatal. If they scare you exercise you individual right not to
use them. Do not deprive the rest of us of freedom in order to satisfy your
cravings.

Unsightly is a personal opinion. Everybody has there own opinions.

Environmentalism is an ideology on par with Nazism. It deserves no
comment.

Security is an issue only if we let become one. Technology gives more as
many advantages as disadvantages, and real security is rather simple. If
armed air marshals were available on 9-11 the towers would still be there.

[Dan Luke]

"Montblack" wrote:
> ...asperses...

Merriam Webster let me down on this one.

[Bob Fry]

writes:

> >Heard about the GPS ?
>
> GPS was covered in some detail in the original 1998 thread. GPS just
> isn't accurate or reliable enough for a lot of fast-moving objects in
> a crowded space.

But if all GPSs are consistent in their error, then their relative
accuracy w.r.t. each other will serve.

But like others, I don't think aircars are practical for other
reasons. Anyway, why telecommuting isn't being promoted more is a
mystery to me...why not tax subsidies for cheap reliable bandwidth?
For development of large cheap screens? For....

[Parallax]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message >...
> > wrote in message
> ...
> > Almost five years ago I started a thread critiquing the technological
> > and aesthetic problems associated with air cars [...]
> >
> > Back then, I was surprised to see so many defenders of this insanely
> > complex, unsafe, environmentally disruptive nightmare, but I think
> > today's new world has put the final nail in the coffin.
>
> You came back five years later just to say "I told you so"?
>
> Not that I believe you really had that many people disagreeing with you
> anyway. Not in the rec.aviation.piloting newsgroup. But doesn't your post
> strike you as just a little petty?
>
> Pete

"Air Cars", what a weird thing to spend time worrying about.

[Wizard of Draws]

Bob Fry wrote:

>
> But like others, I don't think aircars are practical for other
> reasons. Anyway, why telecommuting isn't being promoted more is a
> mystery to me...why not tax subsidies for cheap reliable bandwidth?
> For development of large cheap screens? For....

Thank you!
All the talk of air pollution, traffic congestion, road rage, etc.
associated with commuting, and the government is strangely silent on
promoting telecommuting which is IMHO an extremely viable option at this
point.
Hell, I do freelance work for people all over the world by email alone.
I hardly ever need to speak to my clients by phone.
The deafening silence on this issue makes me wonder what the government
has at stake by *not* encouraging this business model...
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino

"Cartoons with a Touch of Magic"
http://www.wizardofdraws.com
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

[Christopher]

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 23:06:51 +0200, Gilles KERMARC
> wrote:

>
>
wrote:
>
>
>> 6) Navigation in an air car would be a nightmare since it can be hard
>> enough to reach a destination with defined roads and street markings.
>> How would people know where they were, especially at night?
>
>Heard about the GPS ?
>

Which one?



Christopher
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Kites rise highest against
the wind - not with it."
Winston Churchill

[Sam]

wrote in message >...
> Almost five years ago I started a thread critiquing the technological
> and aesthetic problems associated with air cars, i.e. millions of
> people duking it out in small aircraft instead of automobiles. See:
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&q=%22Air+cars+will+never+fly%22
>
> It was based on this man's (and other technophiles') naive, unworkable
> vision of air cars replacing most ground traffic.
>
> http://www.houstonspacesociety.org/whynotfly.htm
>
> Back then, I was surprised to see so many defenders of this insanely
> complex, unsafe, environmentally disruptive nightmare, but I think
> today's new world has put the final nail in the coffin. I hope the
> latest reason goes without saying! See subject line.
>
> A.J.

You think this will never happen? Not even 10 or 20 years from now?
You're like those people back in the early 1800's that said humans
would not be able to survive going faster than 45 mph.

Whose to say what will come of energy development and navigation
technology in the not too distant future? With our current power
problems and the development of nanotechnology I think neglected
research in Fusion and portable power storage (i.e. batteries) will
start to become more of a priority. Include our ever increasing
traffic congestion, and I see the potential for some sort of aircar.
No, not 5 years from now. But eventually I could see it.

[Peter Duniho]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
> "Montblack" wrote:
> > ...asperses...
>
> Merriam Webster let me down on this one.

I assume he meant "auspices".

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Bob Fry > posted:

> writes:
>
>>> Heard about the GPS ?
>>
>> GPS was covered in some detail in the original 1998 thread. GPS just
>> isn't accurate or reliable enough for a lot of fast-moving objects in
>> a crowded space.
>
> But if all GPSs are consistent in their error, then their relative
> accuracy w.r.t. each other will serve.
>
Oh? How about relative accuracy w/r/t buildings, houses, and other
obstructions?

IMNSHO, this has to be thought through a bit more. We're running out of
deserted spaces to operate this kind of thing.

Neil

[Casey Wilson]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
> "Montblack" wrote:
> > ...asperses...
>
> Merriam Webster let me down on this one.
>

Asperse: To spread false rumors; to strew upon or over; to slander or
calumniate (as to asperse a man's motives).
From Webster's Unabridged.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
wrote:

> On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 23:06:51 +0200, Gilles KERMARC
> > wrote:
>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> 6) Navigation in an air car would be a nightmare since it can be hard
> >> enough to reach a destination with defined roads and street markings.
> >> How would people know where they were, especially at night?
> >
> >Heard about the GPS ?
>
> GPS was covered in some detail in the original 1998 thread. GPS just
> isn't accurate or reliable enough for a lot of fast-moving objects in
> a crowded space. I've used a GPS handheld extensively and would not
> bet my life on its resolution of 14 feet, or even 1 foot if such
> accuracy was possible for the public.
>
> Besides, GPS is just one of many flaws in the concept.
>
> A.J.

Obviously, Al is NOT a pilot! Otherwise, he would know enough to look
outside the cockpit for other traffic! Gadgets are a useful SUPPLEMENT
to the Mk I eyeball -- NOT a substitute!

As for the Moller Aircar: IMHO the thing is a first order scam.
Technically, Moller's design is a controls nightmare -- eight engines
with a completely fly-by-wire control system. What happens when one or
more engines shut down?

Moller, like Al, is not a pilot - his attitude is that flight training
would "disrupt his train of thought," rather than provide him with
insightful soultions.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Bob Fry wrote:
>
> Anyway, why telecommuting isn't being promoted more is a
> mystery to me...

That's simple enough. Company policies are actually enforced by fairly low-level
managers. If they can't cruise by your cubicle or office to make sure you're
really working, many of them aren't comfortable, so they will make up reasons
why you must appear in person. Managers who are insecure in their jobs also
tend to be meeting schedulers so that it will appear that they are hard workers.
I worked for a firm that had an official policy that employees telecommute when
possible, but somehow it was rarely possible. At the time I left, they were
moving to a six-day work week, with a mandatory standing meeting on Saturday
morning.

George Patterson
The British drink warm beer because they all own Lucas refrigerators.

[Dan Luke]

"Casey Wilson" wrote:
> Asperse: To spread false rumors; to strew upon or over; to slander
or
> calumniate (as to asperse a man's motives).

I saw that, but that's a verb.

[Zoltan Szakaly]

snip snip ...
>
> You think this will never happen? Not even 10 or 20 years from now?
> You're like those people back in the early 1800's that said humans
> would not be able to survive going faster than 45 mph.
>
> Whose to say what will come of energy development and navigation
> technology in the not too distant future? With our current power
> problems and the development of nanotechnology I think neglected
> research in Fusion and portable power storage (i.e. batteries) will
> start to become more of a priority. Include our ever increasing
> traffic congestion, and I see the potential for some sort of aircar.
> No, not 5 years from now. But eventually I could see it.

I am developing a flying car. It uses induction jet engines that I
have developed, fly by wire technology, GPS navigation.

It can hover or fly at very slow speeds, it has no moving parts in the
engines and it tolerates multiple computer, sensor or actuator
failures.

It will fly following predefined roads in the sky. It can land
anywhere and be driven like a regular ground car. I envision driving
in towns and flying cross country. Hover is not fuel efficient but
will only be used for takeoff and landing.

The development status is the following:

I have working induction jet engines
I have developed the flight control system that consists of:
-motor controllers
-multiprocessor systems
-fiber optic data links
-software architecture

I am hoping to integrate a prototype in the near future.

Zoltan

http://www.vtol.net

[Montblack]

("Dan Luke" wrote)
> > ...asperses...
>
> Merriam Webster let me down on this one.


It was auspices and asperses - combined.

It's called Montbonics.

Montblack
"I like to watch"
...might be the root of the problem

[Cecil E. Chapman]

Hmmm... Seems to me that most auto drivers are doing well to safely handle
their machines, moving in only 2 dimensions... Don't give 'em 3
dimensions,,,, they're barely driving safely now, in only two.

--
--
Good Flights!

Cecil E. Chapman, Jr.
PP-ASEL

"We who fly do so for the love of flying.
We are alive in the air with this miracle
that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"

- Cecil Day Lewis-

Check out my personal flying adventures: www.bayareapilot.com
> wrote in message
...
> Almost five years ago I started a thread critiquing the technological
> and aesthetic problems associated with air cars, i.e. millions of
> people duking it out in small aircraft instead of automobiles. See:
>
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&q=%22Air+cars+will+never+fly%22
>
> It was based on this man's (and other technophiles') naive, unworkable
> vision of air cars replacing most ground traffic.
>
> http://www.houstonspacesociety.org/whynotfly.htm
>
> Back then, I was surprised to see so many defenders of this insanely
> complex, unsafe, environmentally disruptive nightmare, but I think
> today's new world has put the final nail in the coffin. I hope the
> latest reason goes without saying! See subject line.
>
> A.J.
>
>
>
>
>
> ORIGINAL POST
> Subject: Air cars will never fly
> 12-13-98 (sci.space.policy)
>
> The article on the link below epitomizes the deluded "vision" of many
> in the space-colonization movement. If the author thinks air-cars are
> practical it's no wonder he thinks space-colonization as a means to
> keep society sustainable is feasible too (see other links on the
> site.)
>
> http://www.houstonspacesociety.org/whynotfly.htm
>
>
> Here are some obvious reasons why the air-car concept will never fly:
>
> 1) It takes FAR more energy to keep something in the air vs. on the
> ground, where no energy must be expended to lift its mass. In the
> article the author claims that guv'mint fuel regulations inspired him
> to think of the air-car concept, but he is completely deluded. He
> yearns for transportation that would create energy nightmares on a
> much larger scale.
>
> 2) Accidents happen often enough with earthbound vehicles restricted
> to lanes. If we expand transportation into the air, millions of
> vehicles will have to dodge each other with no lane boundaries and a
> third dimension as well. It would be complete mayhem. Driving skill
> is poor enough as it is, and most accidents would probably be fatal.
> Who would trust a naive 16, 18 or 21 year-old to fly and jeopardize
> everyone's safety? What about the elderly or infirm who can barely
> keep a car on the pavement? Even top pilots have to concentrate hard
> to maneuver aircraft in congested situations.
>
> 3) When a mechanical breakdown occurs with an earthbound vehicle it
> often just rolls to a stop, out of harm's way. But a breakdown in a
> airborne vehicle would result is serious danger to anyone in the area.
> Controlling air-cars with computers to prevent accidents makes no
> sense since it negates the very freedom they are supposed to offer,
> plus computer systems fail, and would inevitably cause tragedies in a
> sky packed with cars.
>
> 4) Environmentally speaking (and this is where the author is really
> nuts, since he was partially inspired by a desire for fewer roads)
> air-cars would be a visual and auditory nightmare. With no clear
> lanes we would have vehicles buzzing all over the place, ruining peace
> and quiet and disrupting areas that were formerly safe from roads of
> any kind. Wildlife would be routinely scared and you couldn't go
> anywhere (or even sleep at night) for fear of a joyrider slamming into
> you. It would be like opening the entire planet to airborne jet-skis.
>
> 5) There are close to 200 million cars and trucks in use in America
> today, and to replace even a fraction of these with air-cars would be
> completely impractical for many reasons (cost alone would be
> staggering). One big issue is our dependence on trucks of all sizes
> for hauling freight, which would be impractical in high speed flying
> vehicles. The author claims that air-cars would allow us to tear up
> paved routes that spoil natural scenery, but this would prevent the
> movement of vital freight everywhere; totally unworkable. Tearing up
> roads would be impossibly expensive and it would just leave erosion
> scars.
>
> 6) Navigation in an air car would be a nightmare since it can be hard
> enough to reach a destination with defined roads and street markings.
> How would people know where they were, especially at night? How would
> people park as well? Unless some magic anti-gravity propulsion is
> developed we would be subject to annoying air-blasts every time
> someone pulled into a Wal-Mart. The takeoff scenario after a major
> crowd event would be a hopeless maze of flying objects as everyone
> tried to leave first.
>
> The author is a Libertarian who detests regulations, but air-cars
> would demand more regulations than he could ever imagine. If anyone
> thinks air-cars would be remotely practical (except as toys for the
> wealthy) I'd like to see your arguments.
>
> A.J. (reposted from 12-13-1998)

[Paul Blay]

"Cecil E. Chapman" wrote ...
> Hmmm... Seems to me that most auto drivers are doing well to safely handle
> their machines, moving in only 2 dimensions... Don't give 'em 3
> dimensions,,,, they're barely driving safely now, in only two.

Good point. After all we have enough trouble training people how to post in
newsgroups.

> > wrote in message
> ...
> > Almost five years ago I started a thread critiquing the technological
> > and aesthetic problems associated with air cars, i.e. millions of
> > people duking it out in small aircraft instead of automobiles. See:

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
(Zoltan Szakaly) wrote:

> snip snip ...
> >
> > You think this will never happen? Not even 10 or 20 years from now?
> > You're like those people back in the early 1800's that said humans
> > would not be able to survive going faster than 45 mph.
> >
> > Whose to say what will come of energy development and navigation
> > technology in the not too distant future? With our current power
> > problems and the development of nanotechnology I think neglected
> > research in Fusion and portable power storage (i.e. batteries) will
> > start to become more of a priority. Include our ever increasing
> > traffic congestion, and I see the potential for some sort of aircar.
> > No, not 5 years from now. But eventually I could see it.
>
> I am developing a flying car. It uses induction jet engines that I
> have developed, fly by wire technology, GPS navigation.

Are the engines similar to the Gluharff engine? If so, they are very
efficient at converting fuel into noise (with poor thrust, too).


> It can hover or fly at very slow speeds, it has no moving parts in the
> engines and it tolerates multiple computer, sensor or actuator
> failures.


Sounds good -- NOW, let's see it fly!


> It will fly following predefined roads in the sky. It can land
> anywhere and be driven like a regular ground car. I envision driving
> in towns and flying cross country. Hover is not fuel efficient but
> will only be used for takeoff and landing.



Why the predefined routes?

Such a requirement removes the flexibility and usefulness of an aircraft
and can even be hazardous (T-storms, ice, fog, etc.).

Sounds as if Zoltan has no aviation experience.




> The development status is the following:
>
> I have working induction jet engines
> I have developed the flight control system that consists of:
> -motor controllers
> -multiprocessor systems
> -fiber optic data links
> -software architecture
>
> I am hoping to integrate a prototype in the near future.
>
> Zoltan
>
> http://www.vtol.net

It looks like an altered Velocity airframe. Again, I see NO aviation
expertise in Zoltan's resume.

I also see no mention of cost (operating, acquisition & maintenance).
Those four engines can be pretty thirsty!

[mike regish]

Just hit geese and ducks instead.

mike regish

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gilles KERMARC" > wrote in message
> news:bl4u58$ng1$1@news-
>
> > > 6) Navigation in an air car would be a nightmare since it can be hard
> > > enough to reach a destination with defined roads and street markings.
> > > How would people know where they were, especially at night?
> >
> > Heard about the GPS ?
>
> GPS is not an accepted form of primary instrument natigation, is it?
>
> Plus...how would we hit raccoons and possum?!
>
> -c
>
>

[Morgans]

"Zoltan Szakaly" > wrote in message >
> The development status is the following:
>
> I have working induction jet engines
> I have developed the flight control system that consists of:
> -motor controllers
> -multiprocessor systems
> -fiber optic data links
> -software architecture
>
> I am hoping to integrate a prototype in the near future.
>
> Zoltan
>
> http://www.vtol.net

The cruise endurance is 2 hours, and even at high cruise, of 400 mph, that
is 800 miles. Where do you come up with 1000 miles range.
--
Jim in NC

[Michael 182]

Really excellent glide ratio

Michael


"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> The cruise endurance is 2 hours, and even at high cruise, of 400 mph, that
> is 800 miles. Where do you come up with 1000 miles range.
> --
> Jim in NC
>
>

[Eric Pinnell]

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 05:59:19 GMT, wrote:


>GPS was covered in some detail in the original 1998 thread. GPS just
>isn't accurate or reliable enough for a lot of fast-moving objects in
>a crowded space. I've used a GPS handheld extensively and would not
>bet my life on its resolution of 14 feet, or even 1 foot if such
>accuracy was possible for the public.
>
>Besides, GPS is just one of many flaws in the concept.
>
>A.J.

Galileo plans to go to 1 meter resolution. Enhanced GPS will have a
similar resolution. A SkyCar or similar vehicle is well below the
maximum speed threshold for GPS.


Eric Pinnell

(Author, "Claws of The Dragon", "The Omega File")

For a preview, see: http://www.ericpinnell.com and click on "books"

[Montblack]

("gatt" wrote)
> Plus...how would we hit raccoons and possum?!

Why did the chicken cross the road?

To prove to the raccoon that, yes, it can be done.

--
Montblack

[Jack Allison]

ROTFL...the perfect excuse for any past, present, or future lack of
spelling/context checking :-)

--
Jack Allison
PP-ASEL

"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the Earth
with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there
you will always long to return"
- Leonardo Da Vinci

(Remove the obvious from address to reply via e-mail)

[gmw]

Hey, whaddabout blind people like me? Cars have ESTRICTED my freedom, thank
you very much. I can't go anywhere that doesn't have mass transit (or decent
sidewalks, which are an equal rarity) without fearing for my life.
<grumblegrumble> ##$%^ two-ton machines...Trying to kill me, I swear...
</grumblegrumble>

John

SO now the whole world must stripped of autos and other wise
de-industrialized in order for you to cope with your disability? Poor
little lost babe. Lets have a pity party. Oh, wait how about this line of
reasoning? The lack of advance technology had handicapped me in my search
for new opportunities. In order to help me adjust to my disability you must
make the reasonable accommodation of letting air cars, ssto and other high
tech development projects go forth unimpeded.

[Morgans]

"gmw" > wrote in message
.. .
> Hey, whaddabout blind people like me? Cars have ESTRICTED my freedom,
thank
> you very much. I can't go anywhere that doesn't have mass transit (or
decent
> sidewalks, which are an equal rarity) without fearing for my life.
> <grumblegrumble> ##$%^ two-ton machines...Trying to kill me, I swear...
> </grumblegrumble>
>
> John
>
> SO now the whole world must stripped of autos and other wise
> de-industrialized in order for you to cope with your disability? Poor
> little lost babe. Lets have a pity party. Oh, wait how about this line of
> reasoning? The lack of advance technology had handicapped me in my search
> for new opportunities. In order to help me adjust to my disability you
must
> make the reasonable accommodation of letting air cars, ssto and other high
> tech development projects go forth unimpeded.
>
>
Who ****ed in your Wheaties. Totally uncalled for.

See ya. Not.
--
Jim in NC

[[email protected]]

"gatt" > wrote in message >...
> "Gilles KERMARC" > wrote in message
> news:bl4u58$ng1$1@news-
>
> > > 6) Navigation in an air car would be a nightmare since it can be hard
> > > enough to reach a destination with defined roads and street markings.
> > > How would people know where they were, especially at night?
> >
> > Heard about the GPS ?
>
> GPS is not an accepted form of primary instrument natigation, is it?
>
> Plus...how would we hit raccoons and possum?!
>
> -c

You'll just have to settle for pigeons and sparrows.

Regards
Earthling

[Zoltan Szakaly]

"Morgans" > wrote in message >...
> "Zoltan Szakaly" > wrote in message >
> > The development status is the following:
> >
> > I have working induction jet engines
> > I have developed the flight control system that consists of:
> > -motor controllers
> > -multiprocessor systems
> > -fiber optic data links
> > -software architecture
> >
> > I am hoping to integrate a prototype in the near future.
> >
> > Zoltan
> >
> > http://www.vtol.net
>
> The cruise endurance is 2 hours, and even at high cruise, of 400 mph, that
> is 800 miles. Where do you come up with 1000 miles range.


The current concept includes an impeller driven by a wankel engine.
This is used to blow bypass air around the induction jet engines
during hover to keep them from melting.

Horizontal flight can be done in various ways:

1. Gliding without engines using the canards and ailerons/flaps for
control.
This can be used for fuel out/emergency glide and landing.

2. On the ducted fan economy low speed cruise.
We are not sure how fast or how economical this will be.

3. Using the rear two induction engines with or without the ducted
fan.
This is the fastest cruise and should be somewhat economical.

We have data on the engines at static operation and have simulated the
airframe. The stall speed is 90 mph without engines. It can fly slower
with the engines and it can stop, hover, fly backwards.

The 1000 mile range is approximate, it depends on the payload etc.
This is achieved at less than full speed cruise. The 2 hours endurance
is for 400 mph.

I do have aviation experience, I learned to fly on a friends piper
apache, have done takeoffs and landings on my own. I do not fly now. I
think that the conventional instrumentation is way obsolete.

Of course the one-mw can fly anywhere just like any airplane. It can
be flown with the side-sticks. The front seats are equipped with
steering wheels, gas and brake pedals as well as two joysticks each.
The joysticks control pitch-roll on one side and throttle-yaw on the
other. This is the same as radio controlled airplanes or helicopters.
The pitch roll stick has a vertical throttle knob.

Zoltan

[Morgans]

Oh brother. If this wasn't so pitiful, it would be funny.

I'm from Missouri.
--
Jim in NC