Cheep flying

[Ed Sullivan]

How about this puppy

http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/VideoPlayer/videoPlayer.php?vidId=51023&ca

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Ed Sullivan" > wrote in message
...
> How about this puppy
>
> http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/VideoPlayer/videoPlayer.php?vidId=51023&ca
>

It's a gyroplane with folding rotor. Just goes to prove that the patent
office is doing any "prior art" checks before they give the things out.

The liability of driving a prop propelled motorcycle on public streets is
frightening.

[Paul Hastings]

Also, $25,000 isn't that cheap.

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Ed Sullivan" > wrote in message
> ...
>> How about this puppy
>>
>> http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/VideoPlayer/videoPlayer.php?vidId=51023&ca
>>
>
> It's a gyroplane with folding rotor. Just goes to prove that the patent
> office is doing any "prior art" checks before they give the things out.
>
> The liability of driving a prop propelled motorcycle on public streets is
> frightening.
>

[Mike Holt]

Patented? What was patented?

Flying to work is unacceptable. The risks of the unshrouded propellor
are great enough, but add to that the demonstrated incompetence of the
average commuter and we are left with a lawyer's dream and filled ERs.

On the other hand, the amusement value of humans cannot be
overestimated.


Mike

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Mike Holt" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Patented? What was patented?
>
> Flying to work is unacceptable. The risks of the unshrouded propellor
> are great enough, but add to that the demonstrated incompetence of the
> average commuter and we are left with a lawyer's dream and filled ERs.
>
> On the other hand, the amusement value of humans cannot be
> overestimated.
>


The headline of the clip said...

"North Texan patents flying motorcycle"

[Ed Sullivan]

On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 14:12:26 -0600, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:

>
>"Ed Sullivan" > wrote in message
...
>> How about this puppy
>>
>> http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/VideoPlayer/videoPlayer.php?vidId=51023&ca
>>
>
>It's a gyroplane with folding rotor. Just goes to prove that the patent
>office is doing any "prior art" checks before they give the things out.
>
>The liability of driving a prop propelled motorcycle on public streets is
>frightening.
>
>
Short of commuting in a tank it sounds like a commuters dream.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Ed Sullivan" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 14:12:26 -0600, "Gig 601XL Builder"
> <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Ed Sullivan" > wrote in message
...
>>> How about this puppy
>>>
>>> http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/VideoPlayer/videoPlayer.php?vidId=51023&ca
>>>
>>
>>It's a gyroplane with folding rotor. Just goes to prove that the patent
>>office is doing any "prior art" checks before they give the things out.
>>
>>The liability of driving a prop propelled motorcycle on public streets is
>>frightening.
>>
>>
> Short of commuting in a tank it sounds like a commuters dream.
>

Well let's assume you make it to the street where your office is and land
safely. You then have to shut it down fold up the wing and then restart and
drive it down the street where somebody IS going to walk into the prop. This
will probably happen during the first week.

[[email protected]]

The "CHEEPEST" flying I know of is my canary!
tom

[kd5sak]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Ed Sullivan" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 14:12:26 -0600, "Gig 601XL Builder"
>> <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:
>
> Well let's assume you make it to the street where your office is and land
> safely. You then have to shut it down fold up the wing and then restart
> and drive it down the street where somebody IS going to walk into the
> prop. This will probably happen during the first week.
>
I'd think a caged prop like the powered chutists use would solve that
problem, however there are still thousands out there who'd stick a finger in
the "fan". Never saw a kid yet
that wouldn't, at least, try. (G)

Harold
KD5SAK

[flybabybuilder]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> "Ed Sullivan" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 14:12:26 -0600, "Gig 601XL Builder"
> > <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>"Ed Sullivan" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>> How about this puppy
> >>>
> >>> http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/VideoPlayer/videoPlayer.php?vidId=51023&ca
> >>>
> >>
> >>It's a gyroplane with folding rotor. Just goes to prove that the patent
> >>office is doing any "prior art" checks before they give the things out.
> >>
> >>The liability of driving a prop propelled motorcycle on public streets is
> >>frightening.
> >>
> >>
> > Short of commuting in a tank it sounds like a commuters dream.
> >
>
> Well let's assume you make it to the street where your office is and land
> safely. You then have to shut it down fold up the wing and then restart and
> drive it down the street where somebody IS going to walk into the prop. This
> will probably happen during the first week.

Niche commuter market, indeed. Take off from your exurban neighborhood
fifty miles from downtown (have a look at the Dallas Class B chart
sometime). You land on the roof of your building, or in the parking
lot, having designated it as a private heliport.

Would NOT want to turn quickly on the road, though. Three wheels and a
high CG spells "tippy".

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"flybabybuilder" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>> "Ed Sullivan" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 14:12:26 -0600, "Gig 601XL Builder"
>> > <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>"Ed Sullivan" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >>> How about this puppy
>> >>>
>> >>> http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/VideoPlayer/videoPlayer.php?vidId=51023&ca
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>It's a gyroplane with folding rotor. Just goes to prove that the patent
>> >>office is doing any "prior art" checks before they give the things out.
>> >>
>> >>The liability of driving a prop propelled motorcycle on public streets
>> >>is
>> >>frightening.
>> >>
>> >>
>> > Short of commuting in a tank it sounds like a commuters dream.
>> >
>>
>> Well let's assume you make it to the street where your office is and land
>> safely. You then have to shut it down fold up the wing and then restart
>> and
>> drive it down the street where somebody IS going to walk into the prop.
>> This
>> will probably happen during the first week.
>
> Niche commuter market, indeed. Take off from your exurban neighborhood
> fifty miles from downtown (have a look at the Dallas Class B chart
> sometime). You land on the roof of your building, or in the parking
> lot, having designated it as a private heliport.
>

Two problems first, it's not a helicopter it's a gyrocopter, their vertical
takeoff and landing abilities are not the same. Second, if you are going to
land at you own helipad at your building why have the motorcycle like on
rode ability.



> Would NOT want to turn quickly on the road, though. Three wheels and a
> high CG spells "tippy".
>

[150flivver]

Would you even be allowed to drive this thing on the road--how would
you get it licensed?

[Tater Schuld]

when is $25,000 cheap?
"Ed Sullivan" > wrote in message
...
> How about this puppy
>
> http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/VideoPlayer/videoPlayer.php?vidId=51023&ca
>

[[email protected]]

>>Would you even be allowed to drive this thing on the road--how would
you get it licensed? <<

Probably depends on the state. Here it wouldn't be a problem (Wy).
The operator could probably measure his/her lifespan in minutes after
the first rock chipped a fellow commuters windshield
.......................... It's a toss-up if it would be 9mm or 40 SW

==================
Leon McAtee

[Denny]

I was going to say that he must be related to Moeller, but his flies so
he can't be...

denny

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Ed Sullivan" > wrote in message
> ...
>> How about this puppy
>>
>> http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/VideoPlayer/videoPlayer.php?vidId=51023&ca
>>
>
> It's a gyroplane with folding rotor. Just goes to prove that the patent
> office is doing any "prior art" checks before they give the things out.


Did you read the claims? The patent could cover something like the
particular method for folding the rotors, the way the latch works, or some
bit of the design.

The description of the perfered embodyment may cover basic things like
gyrocopters and how they work, but the only thing that is actually protected
by the patent is what is in the clams.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
Spell checking is left as an excercise for the reader.

[Morgans]

"Tater Schuld" > wrote in message
...
> when is $25,000 cheap?
> "Ed Sullivan" > wrote in message
> ...
> > How about this puppy
> >
> >
http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/VideoPlayer/videoPlayer.php?vidId=51023&ca

Compared to $325,000, it is cheap. Compared to some SUV's and mini-vans, it
is cheap.

Tell us, tater, why are you so hung up on money? Do you really expect to
get a useful flying machine cheap? Do you value your life so little?

Are you unable to get a job that pays well enough, to pay for something as
low as $25,000?

I don't get it. What reality do you live in, that makes flying a cheap
hobby, or way of life?
--
Jim in NC

[Harry K]

Denny wrote:
> I was going to say that he must be related to Moeller, but his flies so
> he can't be...
>
> denny

Such flying machines will never be used for commuting to any extent.
Just picture the aerial traffic problems and the infa structure that
would be required to control it. The dreams of everyone having one
will never happen no matter how cheap and practical they get due to the
mayhem that would ensue. Jeez, we can't even keep cars from running
into each other.

Harry K

[Smitty Two]

In article . com>,
"Harry K" > wrote:

> Denny wrote:
> > I was going to say that he must be related to Moeller, but his flies so
> > he can't be...
> >
> > denny
>
> Such flying machines will never be used for commuting to any extent.
> Just picture the aerial traffic problems and the infa structure that
> would be required to control it. The dreams of everyone having one
> will never happen no matter how cheap and practical they get due to the
> mayhem that would ensue. Jeez, we can't even keep cars from running
> into each other.
>
> Harry K

"Never" is a pretty strong word, Harry. It wasn't so long ago that the
idea of everyone owning a car was laughable. And don't forget the idea
(which has been credited to various people by creative historians) that
the worldwide market for computers might number in the tens.

The flying motorcycle in question might not be the ubiquitous personal
transport of tomorrow any more than Moeller's skycar, but serious
thinkers are already planning for the Jetson's. Small planes flown by
computer, possibly in ground effect, could eliminate congestion, shorten
commutes, and massively reduce the need for building and maintaining
highways.

Smitty

[Dan]

"Smitty Two" > wrote in message >

The flying motorcycle in question might not be the ubiquitous personal
> transport of tomorrow any more than Moeller's skycar, but serious
> thinkers are already planning for the Jetson's. Small planes flown by
> computer, possibly in ground effect, could eliminate congestion, shorten
> commutes, and massively reduce the need for building and maintaining
> highways.

It's fiine that people are thinking about it. But in this case without some
huge technology shift it'll remain a dream. You require something that will
haul the family, groceries, vacation luggage and fly in bad weather and
severe wind. And yet be controllable by your average cellphone talker.
Nobody is going to take on remote piloting liabilities. Remember that all
this has to be cheaper than commuting in a car, in the face of rising energy
costs. On top of all that you have a fair percentage of the population who
are scared to death of the notion of flight.

And to be honest, I'd rather flying remained the domain of the few who
really appreciate it.

[Morgans]

"Smitty Two" > wrote

> Small planes flown by
> computer, possibly in ground effect, could eliminate congestion, shorten
> commutes, and massively reduce the need for building and maintaining
> highways.

They would need highways, if they were in ground effect, no?
--
Jim in NC

[Ed Sullivan]

On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 17:15:21 GMT, Ed Sullivan >
wrote:

>How about this puppy
>
>http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/VideoPlayer/videoPlayer.php?vidId=51023&ca
>

I think what we may be overlooking is, that while it would probably
not be a practical commuting machine; it is a relatively inexpensive
rotorcraft that is roadable. With a shroud one could drive it to the
airport or a suitable take off spot.

[Smitty Two]

In article >,
"Dan" > wrote:

> "Smitty Two" > wrote in message >
>
> The flying motorcycle in question might not be the ubiquitous personal
> > transport of tomorrow any more than Moeller's skycar, but serious
> > thinkers are already planning for the Jetson's. Small planes flown by
> > computer, possibly in ground effect, could eliminate congestion, shorten
> > commutes, and massively reduce the need for building and maintaining
> > highways.
>
> It's fiine that people are thinking about it. But in this case without some
> huge technology shift it'll remain a dream. You require something that will
> haul the family, groceries, vacation luggage and fly in bad weather and
> severe wind. And yet be controllable by your average cellphone talker.
> Nobody is going to take on remote piloting liabilities. Remember that all
> this has to be cheaper than commuting in a car, in the face of rising energy
> costs. On top of all that you have a fair percentage of the population who
> are scared to death of the notion of flight.
>
> And to be honest, I'd rather flying remained the domain of the few who
> really appreciate it.

I agree that we'll need some huge technology shifts. History is peppered
with them, and I have no reason to believe that we've reached some sort
of pinnacle. Fifty years from now, most of the technology we use today
might seem primitive.

As far as the liability of a computer flown machine, we trust our lives
to computers every day. Without them, there would be no food on the
grocery store shelves, our cars wouldn't run, our buildings would be
uninhabitable, all forms of transportation would stop, all forms of mass
media would shut down, and every aspect of our financial lives would
collapse, just to name a few.

The modern airliner is perfectly well able to takeoff, fly to
destination, and land on full autopilot. It's our collective sense of
propriety that keeps the pilots in the cockpit, but paradigm shifts tend
to accompany technological "advancements." (I use the term skeptically
because I really believe we'd be better off as hunter-gatherers living
in straw huts.) Early in the last century, medical professionals didn't
believe the human body could withstand traveling at 20 mph. Later, they
weren't at all sure what would happen to the body or the machine at Mach
1.

(I also feel the same about sharing the skies with "commoners." I don't
even like sharing the road with them.)

[Smitty Two]

In article >,
"Morgans" > wrote:

> "Smitty Two" > wrote
>
> > Small planes flown by
> > computer, possibly in ground effect, could eliminate congestion, shorten
> > commutes, and massively reduce the need for building and maintaining
> > highways.
>
> They would need highways, if they were in ground effect, no?

Well, maybe a bulldozed path, sans concrete and all those other
finishing touches.

[Eddge]

@And to be honest, I'd rather flying remained the domain of the few who

really appreciate it.

You misspelled, "the few who can afford to jump through the innumerable
hoops required in conventional aviation, ca. 2006."

Those who truthfully have no appreciation for flight will not pay to
get into it. They can stay on the roads, in the trains, etc. But
there is no physical need for flight to remain the exclusive domain of
the twentieth-century fixed-wing fraternity.

[Eddge]

@"advancements." (I use the term skeptically
because I really believe we'd be better off as hunter-gatherers living
in straw huts.)

Surely you jest. How old are you? If x > approx. 20, you would likely
be dead by now in such a culture. Not to mention, when x > 70, your
descendants would kill you to have one less mouth to feed.

[Smitty Two]

In article . com>,
"Eddge" > wrote:

> @"advancements." (I use the term skeptically
> because I really believe we'd be better off as hunter-gatherers living
> in straw huts.)
>
> Surely you jest. How old are you? If x > approx. 20, you would likely
> be dead by now in such a culture. Not to mention, when x > 70, your
> descendants would kill you to have one less mouth to feed.

No, I'm not jesting, and without modern surgery I would have died forty
years ago, at the age of 11. That is, if hunter-gatherers played
football during lunch break at school.

On the other end of the scale, when I get too old to take care of
myself, I'm done with this silly planet, anyway. I had enough of diapers
and spoon feeding when I was a baby.

Lifespan and quality of life are completely unrelated, and most of what
passes for "quality of life" these days is nonsense, in my arrogant
opinion.

[Don W]

Smitty Two wrote:

> In article . com>,
> "Eddge" > wrote:
>
>
>>@"advancements." (I use the term skeptically
>>because I really believe we'd be better off as hunter-gatherers living
>>in straw huts.)
>>
>>Surely you jest. How old are you? If x > approx. 20, you would likely
>>be dead by now in such a culture. Not to mention, when x > 70, your
>>descendants would kill you to have one less mouth to feed.
>
>
> No, I'm not jesting, and without modern surgery I would have died forty
> years ago, at the age of 11. That is, if hunter-gatherers played
> football during lunch break at school.
>
> On the other end of the scale, when I get too old to take care of
> myself, I'm done with this silly planet, anyway. I had enough of diapers
> and spoon feeding when I was a baby.
>
> Lifespan and quality of life are completely unrelated, and most of what
> passes for "quality of life" these days is nonsense, in my arrogant
> opinion.

A friend of mine who smokes, when told by someone else that smoking
would shorten his life by ten years, retorted that those would be
the ten years that the other fellow would spend in the alzheimers
ward in the nursing home.

Don W.